Resigning during opponents' turn

[jeebus]

I see no reason why resigning should be available unless it's your turn. That was how it was implemented on Isotropic and I can't remember anybody ever questioning it. I can't remember how it was implemented on Goko/MF.

Resigning should of course be possible, but I see no reason why you can't wait until your turn to do it. The biggest problem is the following: It seems it's becoming more and more common to resign in the last turn if your opponent is winning, often just a few seconds before the game is finished anyway. I think it's common courtesy to let the winner finish their last turn. The other side of that is that the winner should do it in a timely manner; but in a game of usually 25 to 50 turns in a two player game (counting each player's turns), one more turn of normal length (or actually whatever is left of that turn at the point when you feel like hitting the "resign" button) hardly matters in terms of time, and doesn't give you the right to cut it short. It's usually just poor sportsmanship and/or annoyance.

As for resigning mid-game, the same applies in terms of time: Waiting half-a-turn more before resigning does not make a difference for you. Although I've gotten used to it, it doesn't always feel nice to be interrupted in the middle of your play. The main reason is the resigning just before you're about to lose though.

There is a drawback to incomplete games in general. You never get to see how your strategy worked in the endgame, or how your opponent's strategy worked. You never get to learn how to *play* your strategy in the endgame. Your opponent just assumed (rightly or wrongly) that you would play it well and win, but you never got to try and see how it worked out in the end, or how close the game would have been. Dominion isn't just played to determine a winner and a loser, but to actually try, you know, playing the kingdoms - against your opponent of course. That said, I get that it's no fun to continue playing when you feel like you have no chance, especially if it's early in the game already, or there's no end in sight. As it gets close to ending, I feel like it's good sportsmanship to see it through - but you can't regulate that: either there is a resign button or there isn't. But there is one easy fix to avoid people resigning during the last turn of their opponent: Making the resign button available only on your turn.

[markus]

I usually don't resign on the opponent's final turn and especially not just before ending the game - I find it a bit awkward as well to have the opponent resign after I play the money for the last province.

But I think that I more often than not resign during opponent's turn: Firt, because I get new information from my next hand. Second, if I see that the opponent doesn't stall, it makes a resignation more reasonable.

If my opponent has decided to resign, I would rather have him resign immediately than let me play out a long turn, think about how to spend my 20 coins in the best way to safeguard victory and then have him resign.

[jeebus]

If my opponent has decided to resign, I would rather have him resign immediately than let me play out a long turn, think about how to spend my 20 coins in the best way to safeguard victory and then have him resign.

On Isotripic we used to say, I'll resign now. Of course then you have to trust the other player. That was never a problem though.
I still think it's a much smaller problem that you sometimes have to play one more turn, than the problem of people resigning during the last turn.

[Stef]

I see your problem and want to do something about it, but I don't think disabling the resign button is a step in the right direction.

Allowing you to continue against an AI seems like a much better idea, that would also solve your problem?

[Cave-O-Sapien]

That said, I get that it's no fun to continue playing when you feel like you have no chance, especially if it's early in the game already, or there's no end in sight. As it gets close to ending, I feel like it's good sportsmanship to see it through - but you can't regulate that: either there is a resign button or there isn't. But there is one easy fix to avoid people resigning during the last turn of their opponent: Making the resign button available only on your turn.

I agree that it's generally good sportsmanship to only resign on your turn, however, I also feel it is very poor sportsmanship to "decksturbate" your last turn rather than winning the game expeditiously. If an opponent has enough coins to win and end the game, but instead proceeds to chain a bunch of actions together to draw their whole deck or pull off that Really Cool Combo, I won't hesitate to resign in the middle of it.

[jeebus]

I see your problem and want to do something about it, but I don't think disabling the resign button is a step in the right direction.

Allowing you to continue against an AI seems like a much better idea, that would also solve your problem?

I only said disabling it during opponents' turns. As I said, it was like that on Isotripic and no-one ever thought it was a problem.

[jeebus]

I agree that it's generally good sportsmanship to only resign on your turn, however, I also feel it is very poor sportsmanship to "decksturbate" your last turn rather than winning the game expeditiously. If an opponent has enough coins to win and end the game, but instead proceeds to chain a bunch of actions together to draw their whole deck or pull off that Really Cool Combo, I won't hesitate to resign in the middle of it.

How fast does the last turn have to be compared to a normal turn? It sounds like you're just feeling impatient because you lost. I know, I feel that too. I try to control it. I really notice that it's a cultural thing. Before, everybody would have the patience to wait one more turn (out of 25-50). Now, the culture is that people are resigning during the last turn; people are doing it to you all the time, so why should you have to wait for a turn that is one second longer than it needs to be? The mere presence of this button during the last turn fosters this culture.

[Stef]

I see your problem and want to do something about it, but I don't think disabling the resign button is a step in the right direction.

Allowing you to continue against an AI seems like a much better idea, that would also solve your problem?

I only said disabling it during opponents' turns. As I said, it was like that on Isotripic and no-one ever thought it was a problem.

On isotropic you could only resign at the start of your turn, and only if you had any decisions in your action phase. If your opponent had you in some kind of lock, or you discarded all your cards to torturer, you couldn't resign at all.

Don't get me wrong, isotropic was great, but this was certainly not something to be jealous of.

[Philip]

I agree that it's generally good sportsmanship to only resign on your turn, however, I also feel it is very poor sportsmanship to "decksturbate" your last turn rather than winning the game expeditiously. If an opponent has enough coins to win and end the game, but instead proceeds to chain a bunch of actions together to draw their whole deck or pull off that Really Cool Combo, I won't hesitate to resign in the middle of it.

How fast does the last turn have to be compared to a normal turn? It sounds like you're just feeling impatient because you lost. I know, I feel that too. I try to control it. I really notice that it's a cultural thing. Before, everybody would have the patience to wait one more turn (out of 25-50). Now, the culture is that people are resigning during the last turn; people are doing it to you all the time, so why should you have to wait for a turn that is one second longer than it needs to be? The mere presence of this button during the last turn fosters this culture.

On Goko and MF you could also resign at any point during the game. Personally I prefer if my opponent lets me finish my last turn, but ultimately that decision is up to him and not something that should be enforced from above.

[Cave-O-Sapien]

I agree that it's generally good sportsmanship to only resign on your turn, however, I also feel it is very poor sportsmanship to "decksturbate" your last turn rather than winning the game expeditiously. If an opponent has enough coins to win and end the game, but instead proceeds to chain a bunch of actions together to draw their whole deck or pull off that Really Cool Combo, I won't hesitate to resign in the middle of it.

How fast does the last turn have to be compared to a normal turn? It sounds like you're just feeling impatient because you lost. I know, I feel that too. I try to control it. I really notice that it's a cultural thing. Before, everybody would have the patience to wait one more turn (out of 25-50). Now, the culture is that people are resigning during the last turn; people are doing it to you all the time, so why should you have to wait for a turn that is one second longer than it needs to be? The mere presence of this button during the last turn fosters this culture.

You're probably right on both counts.

[jeebus]

On isotropic you could only resign at the start of your turn, and only if you had any decisions in your action phase. If your opponent had you in some kind of lock, or you discarded all your cards to torturer, you couldn't resign at all.

Don't get me wrong, isotropic was great, but this was certainly not something to be jealous of.

Ok, fair enough. I still thinks my other reasons stand.
As far as switching to AI... Sounds like a lot more work to implement. And it's still going to foster the bad form of resigning a few seconds before the game is over. If I was about to buy the last Province, it doesn't really make a difference if I do it against a bot. I'll still feel like I was subjected to a rage quit or at least an annoyed gesture. Switching to bot makes more sense if someone resigns earlier in the game. But of course, since the bot will probably be terrible at playing the other player's deck, it's not really going to tell me much about how the game would have played out.

[SkyHard]

I see your problem and want to do something about it, but I don't think disabling the resign button is a step in the right direction.

Allowing you to continue against an AI seems like a much better idea, that would also solve your problem?

I only said disabling it during opponents' turns. As I said, it was like that on Isotripic and no-one ever thought it was a problem.

I never played on Isotropic, so I cannot judge that.
I rarely resign, however, when the opponent is clearly winning and not playing his turn, I do resign. When he is chaining his actions, I don't care. Waiting when the opponent is not there is something else.

[jeebus]

Personally I prefer if my opponent lets me finish my last turn, but ultimately that decision is up to him and not something that should be enforced from above.

Why not? Having a resign button is a variant in any case, just like a VP counter. The rules say nothing about being able to resign. It's just a question of finding a balance between the actual rules of the game and what feels best to the greatest amount of people (most of whom would never post here btw, a very easy thing to forget).

[Cave-O-Sapien]

On isotropic you could only resign at the start of your turn, and only if you had any decisions in your action phase. If your opponent had you in some kind of lock, or you discarded all your cards to torturer, you couldn't resign at all.

Don't get me wrong, isotropic was great, but this was certainly not something to be jealous of.

Ok, fair enough. I still thinks my other reasons stand.
As far as switching to AI... Sounds like a lot more work to implement. And it's still going to foster the bad form of resigning a few seconds before the game is over. If I was about to buy the last Province, it doesn't really make a difference if I do it against a bot. I'll still feel like I was subjected to a rage quit or at least an annoyed gesture. Switching to bot makes more sense if someone resigns earlier in the game. But of course, since the bot will probably be terrible at playing the other player's deck, it's not really going to tell me much about how the game would have played out.

But maybe a resign button is a relatively healthy way to "ragequit". Take away that resign button and some people will just close their browser instead, which could lead to you waiting for a reconnect/timeout.

[Martin plays Piano]

I am not a resign fan at all – but I can understand, that there are situations where resigning will be a win-win for both parties. A little chat IMHO will help to get agreement for all players rather than leaving the table without any word.
But coming back to your suggestion, Stef, the (optional) continuation of the resigned game by replacing the missing player with an AI sounds much better than leaving the remaining player with its half-finished turn. At least the active player will get the opportunity to play and test his successful engine and to bring it into a triumphal finish ...
In regards to the future ranking (which hopefully will come soon), the win of a resigned game should be rewarded by getting more points. This should be done independently from the bots replacement – the voting is done when the resign happened, the bots are only for avoiding / mitigating the coitus interruptus feeling without any influence on the final result.

Have fun
Rachmaninoff

[Cave-O-Sapien]

Why not? Having a resign button is a variant in any case, just like a VP counter. The rules say nothing about being able to resign.

I hope this is sarcasm.

[Mick]

If people want to resign they should be able to resign. This is ridiculous, it shouldn't even be a debate.

[jeebus]

Why not? Having a resign button is a variant in any case, just like a VP counter. The rules say nothing about being able to resign.

I hope this is sarcasm.

It's not. According to the rules, you take your turn, you don't resign. By starting to play a game, all players agree to play by the rules. If you play Dominion IRL, some people might be okay with resigning, others not. It all depends on the game group. But you have to decide or know that in advance. If we agree to play Settlers of Catan and then you lose interest after a while and want to leave, I will of course let you go, but it's not a desirable situation for me, because I could have spent that time playing a game with somebody who didn't quit in the middle. So there's an unspoken agreement from the start that we will finish playing the game (barring any unforeseen event), just because that's the game. You finish it. There is no option in the rules to end the game before it ends. If there were, people would always be fine with it. Since there isn't, people are generally not fine with it. (I'm talking about almost all boardgames played IRL.)

Of course the presence of a resign button online means that now it's part of the deal. But it's just a nice-to-have feature, it has nothing to do with the game of Dominion. It's not something that the developers are required to provide, like Philip was suggesting.

[Cave-O-Sapien]

. If we agree to play Settlers of Catan and then you lose interest after a while and want to leave, I will of course let you go

You phrase this as if you have any say in the matter whatsoever. You don't!

[Jacob Marley]

I am not a resign fan at all – but I can understand, that there are situations where resigning will be a win-win for both parties. A little chat IMHO will help to get agreement for all players rather than leaving the table without any word.
But coming back to your suggestion, Stef, the (optional) continuation of the resigned game by replacing the missing player with an AI sounds much better than leaving the remaining player with its half-finished turn. At least the active player will get the opportunity to play and test his successful engine and to bring it into a triumphal finish ...
In regards to the future ranking (which hopefully will come soon), the win of a resigned game should be rewarded by getting more points. This should be done independently from the bots replacement – the voting is done when the resign happened, the bots are only for avoiding / mitigating the coitus interruptus feeling without any influence on the final result.

Have fun
Rachmaninoff

I totally disagree with the suggestion that a resign win is worth more than a complete game.  This will encourage people to start slow-playing as soon as they are guaranteed to win in order to milk it for more points.  Also, it's unfair to punish a player who has clearly lost by making them keep playing a futile game.  I had one recently where it was a slog that would go on for a while but since I had lost the curse split I could'nt get anything going at all, so I would have had to spend time in a frustrating set of futile turns instead of moving on to an enjoyable game.  Sorry, but it's just a terrible idea.

Regards

[jeebus]

. If we agree to play Settlers of Catan and then you lose interest after a while and want to leave, I will of course let you go

You phrase this as if you have any say in the matter whatsoever. You don't!

I aplogize for phrasing it wrong. I didn't mean "let you" literally. I was talking about *how* I would do it. Can you imagine a situation, let's say a tournament, where it would be very harmful if a player dropped out mid-game or even mid-tournament. In those situations, the organizer would ultimately have to let that player go, but (given that there were no valid reason, such as illness or an emergency) the organizer would explain that it's not okay and try to persuade the player to stay. That's what I would not be doing in the original scenario. But I think you understood my point and was just being argumentative.

[Cave-O-Sapien]

. If we agree to play Settlers of Catan and then you lose interest after a while and want to leave, I will of course let you go

You phrase this as if you have any say in the matter whatsoever. You don't!

I aplogize for phrasing it wrong. I didn't mean "let you" literally. I was talking about *how* I would do it. Can you imagine a situation, let's say a tournament, where it would be very harmful if a player dropped out mid-game or even mid-tournament. In those situations, the organizer would ultimately have to let that player go, but (given that there were no valid reason, such as illness or an emergency) the organizer would explain that it's not okay and try to persuade the player to stay. That's what I would not be doing in the original scenario. But I think you understood my point and was just being argumentative.

Not just being argumentative. It's not the first time I've seen someone suggest they should have some control over whether their opponent can leave the game or not. I think there is a fundamental disagreement over what sort of "contract" you enter into by agreeing to play a game with someone.

[Martin plays Piano]

@ Jacob Marley
Mmh, my initial idea was to reward those resigned wins with additional points due to the fact that the victory was so overwhelming, that the opponent even resigns. What I mean is, that a win with a big difference of VP should be more weighted than a closer win with only 2 points difference – so why not adding some points in addition when your opponent is resigning – just an idea for those people like me thinking positive about their opponents.

But you are right, the reality is not only positive and even our nice community here is obviously interspersed with bad behaviour – so I agree, that the additional reward could guide the leading player into the wrong direction by slowing down the game to enforce the opponent to resign – which was certainly not my intention in my former post to get a reward for attitudes like that.

Given the fact, that the future ranking system might not distinguish between good and bad behaviour, it will be difficult to get my idea operationalised, so I should refrain from it. But finally it leaves me a little bit frustrated, that a little minority of misusers is being able to undermine everything and anything which was well-meant.

[Polk5440]

My ideal solution is in line with what Stef is suggesting. Sub an AI in when someone resigns.

For a two player game this would both
1) immediately award you the win and
2) let you finish your turn/keep playing as long as you like.

If you want to quit the game before finishing yourself or AI wins, instead of "resign", the resign button would read "end game" and still award you the win for rating purposes.

For three or more players, the resigning player would be put in last place, an AI would be subbed in, and the game would continue.

This is in line with how many online card games and casual games have handled this type of situation for years. Many sites (e.g. Yahoo games) would also allow real players to jump into open tables to replace AI players at any time, but I would not recommend this for Dominion.

[McFly]

I don't understand why people get upset when their opponents resign. You should never feel bad for resigning. The only unfortunate thing is that every time an opponent resigns on your turn, the game freezes for a moment and for a second or two you think it crashed.
If subbing in an AI causes a delay like that, I'm not sure I like it for 2P games, but for games with more than 2 players it sounds like a good solution.

[jeebus]

But maybe a resign button is a relatively healthy way to "ragequit". Take away that resign button and some people will just close their browser instead, which could lead to you waiting for a reconnect/timeout.

This is a good point. Especially now that people have been taught that you shouldn't have to wait for your opponent to finish their last turn and/or give them that satisfaction, it sounds like this could be a problem. People will just close their browser instead. It seems like it's a good idea to prevent this kind of behavior anyway, because of course it's already possible to do this.

So I was thinking that if you exit a game (either because you closed the browser or you had a technical problem), and log back in within the 5(?) minute window, you will always get prompted to continue the current game, correct? Is it possible to decline and instead start a new game? The solution is that it shouldn't be. You should actually be immediately put back into the current game. Only after the time window is finished should you be able to start a new game. This is totally fair, because if you were thrown out through no fault of your own, you would want to continue that game. If you did it just to make your opponent wait, you have to wait too. Seems like a no-brainer. (Maybe it already works this way?)

[Mic Qsenoch]

So I was thinking that if you exit a game (either because you closed the browser or you had a technical problem), and log back in within the 5(?) minute window, you will always get prompted to continue the current game, correct? Is it possible to decline and instead start a new game? The solution is that it shouldn't be. You should actually be immediately put back into the current game. Only after the time window is finished should you be able to start a new game. This is totally fair, because if you were thrown out through no fault of your own, you would want to continue that game. If you did it just to make your opponent wait, you have to wait too. Seems like a no-brainer. (Maybe it already works this way?)

It already works this way.

[jeebus]

It already works this way.

Great, then that explains why this isn't already a bigger problem.

[zeruf]

I feel like this is a principle thing for you jeebus where you feel that people are impatient which frustrates you and you want a way to force everyone to be patient. Unfortunately like you said with the culture it is not going to work. Also I don't completely understand why it frustrates you so much when someone resigns right before you win? I mean... you still get the win and you know what you were about to buy to win the game.

From the other side of the coin a lot of people find it just as frustrating when a player decides to do something like buy 20 coppers on the last turn simply because they have the buys, so having the ability to resign when someone is doing that makes sense. Also what markus said, when your opponent starts his or her turn you know what your next turn might look like

Typically when I am contemplating resigning my thought process is something like 'this turn isn't very good and I am behind, I'll buy my cards and see how next turn goes'. *opponent's turn* 'They are drawing their deck and I'm about to dud, I definately have no chance of winning now' *hit resign*.

Also, in regards to finishing a game because you agreed to start, I think it is quite different IRL than online. A major part of IRL play is the social aspect which often doesn't exist online. If I am clearly going to lose a game IRL and we still have an hour of game to go I'll keep playing and socializing... in the same situation online what is the point of forcing yourself to play for another hour when both you and your opponent know who has won. I think it can be just as frusturating if I am really far ahead but it's on a board where I can't end the game quick and my opponent refuses to resign... actually a better example is when there are not even enough points on the board for my opponent to win and they decide to drag it out... why force people to keep playing? Also in the case of one player needing to leave for some reason, instead of forcing your opponent to wait 5 minutes to force you to resign isn't it a lot nicer to resign and end it right there for both of you?

Sorry if this is a bit long and know that I am not trying to attack you in any way, I just strongly disagree with getting rid of the resign button or limiting when it is allowed to be used. In terms of going back to 'the good old days' and telling your opponent 'I will resign next turn'... I feel like the only reason that existed was to compensate for the lack of an ability to resign at any time like you can now. Walkmen were cool, but should we force everyone to stop downloading songs digitally to bring them back?

[jaina8851]

I feel like this is a principle thing for you jeebus where you feel that people are impatient which frustrates you and you want a way to force everyone to be patient. Unfortunately like you said with the culture it is not going to work. Also I don't completely understand why it frustrates you so much when someone resigns right before you win? I mean... you still get the win and you know what you were about to buy to win the game.

From the other side of the coin a lot of people find it just as frustrating when a player decides to do something like buy 20 coppers on the last turn simply because they have the buys, so having the ability to resign when someone is doing that makes sense. Also what markus said, when your opponent starts his or her turn you know what your next turn might look like

Typically when I am contemplating resigning my thought process is something like 'this turn isn't very good and I am behind, I'll buy my cards and see how next turn goes'. *opponent's turn* 'They are drawing their deck and I'm about to dud, I definately have no chance of winning now' *hit resign*.

Also, in regards to finishing a game because you agreed to start, I think it is quite different IRL than online. A major part of IRL play is the social aspect which often doesn't exist online. If I am clearly going to lose a game IRL and we still have an hour of game to go I'll keep playing and socializing... in the same situation online what is the point of forcing yourself to play for another hour when both you and your opponent know who has won. I think it can be just as frusturating if I am really far ahead but it's on a board where I can't end the game quick and my opponent refuses to resign... actually a better example is when there are not even enough points on the board for my opponent to win and they decide to drag it out... why force people to keep playing? Also in the case of one player needing to leave for some reason, instead of forcing your opponent to wait 5 minutes to force you to resign isn't it a lot nicer to resign and end it right there for both of you?

Sorry if this is a bit long and know that I am not trying to attack you in any way, I just strongly disagree with getting rid of the resign button or limiting when it is allowed to be used. In terms of going back to 'the good old days' and telling your opponent 'I will resign next turn'... I feel like the only reason that existed was to compensate for the lack of an ability to resign at any time like you can now. Walkmen were cool, but should we force everyone to stop downloading songs digitally to bring them back?

I agree with you that Resign is necessary and desirable, but I'm two for two this morning in games where my opponents abruptly resigned before it was obvious who was winning. I was *probably* winning in both cases, but it was not a runaway situation nor was it a guarantee. The second opponent didn't even bother with resigning, they just left the table and forced me to wait five minutes so I could force them to resign. Both cases left me inordinately irritated because once the person ragequits, I have no recourse to be like "Hey what happened? Why did you leave the game?" Having a mechanism where the opponent at least has to (or is encouraged) to give the other person warning before they disappear would be nice.

[yed]

I vote for leaving resign as it is.

[zeruf]

I like the idea of replacing with an AI if you want, though I think it should be a prompt screen with something like 'Your opponent resigned, do you wish to continue playing against an AI?' Then you can click yes or no.

I've played against many players who have no issue with resigning and we end up playing 6 or 7 games (some of which we resign) so it would be annoying if I was forced to continue against an AI when I'd rather just start a new game vs. said opponent.

[twasa]

There has been some previous discussion about this topic on the forum, but it seems that resignation still rankles. For what its worth here are my thoughts:

I think there is a fundamental disagreement over what sort of "contract" you enter into by agreeing to play a game with someone.

I think this is the cause of the difference between players. Some see it as a binding contract to play until the end of game conditions are met, as jeebus has argued:

According to the rules, you take your turn, you don't resign. By starting to play a game, all players agree to play by the rules.

Or:

Why not? Having a resign button is a variant in any case, just like a VP counter. The rules say nothing about being able to resign.

Others like myself don't. I expect my opponent or myself to resign at any time for whatever reason at all. No explanation, forewarning or apology required.

In addition to resignation, players may just leave the game, as jaina8851 points out:

The second opponent didn't even bother with resigning, they just left the table and forced me to wait five minutes so I could force them to resign. Both cases left me inordinately irritated because once the person ragequits, I have no recourse...

I live in a country where it is not unusual to have power outages. This has happened to me a few times during a game. Obviously this will be interpreted as a ragequit by the other player if I am behind and may even earn me a place on that player's personal block list once that is implemented. There is little I can do about that, since hours later, when power is restored I am not even in a position to explain myself.

Mmh, my initial idea was to reward those resigned wins with additional points due to the fact that the victory was so overwhelming, that the opponent even resigns. What I mean is, that a win with a big difference of VP should be more weighted than a closer win with only 2 points difference – so why not adding some points in addition when your opponent is resigning – just an idea for those people like me thinking positive about their opponents.

Isotropic didn't do this and I hope it is not even considered. A win in dominion can be close with a large difference in final vp and very unequal with little difference in vp. The person who resigns, conceded the game and lost and that is all that should be considered.

...the (optional) continuation of the resigned game by replacing the missing player with an AI sounds much better than leaving the remaining player with its half-finished turn.

I think this makes sense in a game with 3 or more players, since more than one person is affected, but not really with 2 players. I don't care about finishing my mega turn if my opponent concedes the game.

My 2c.

[twasa]

I vote for leaving resign as it is.

I don't think we're down to voting yet :-)

[yed]

I vote for leaving resign as it is.

I don't think we're down to voting yet :-)

Well there will be no voting ever.... I meant, that I would like  to leave resign as it is ;)

[jeebus]

Zeruf: You make some good points. Just a minor note: In parts of your post you argue against eliminating the resign button or "forcing yourself to play for another hour". That's a bit beside the topic of this thread, since I definitely did not argue for eliminating it, and only talked about waiting for one more turn (or less).

And similarly, to Twasa: You quoted me a bit out of context there. It looks like I'm saying that whenever you enter into a game you agree to a binding contract to finish it. I was only trying to say that resigning a game is something outside of the actual game, a "house rule", that is up to everybody to agree on. That was a response to Philip. As I said, if a Resign button is present at the outcome, resigning is part of the agreed-upon rules. (I'm sure you don't expect your opponent or yourself to "resign at any time for whatever reason at all, no explanation, forewarning or apology required" when sitting down to play a game IRL for instance. So I don't think you necessarily disagree with what I was saying in that post if you re-read it.)

[jaina8851]

Zeruf: You make some good points. Just a minor note: In parts of your post you argue against eliminating the resign button or "forcing yourself to play for another hour". That's a bit beside the topic of this thread, since I definitely did not argue for eliminating it, and only talked about waiting for one more turn (or less).

And similarly, to Twasa: You quoted me a bit out of context there. It looks like I'm saying that whenever you enter into a game you agree to a binding contract to finish it. I was only trying to say that resigning a game is something outside of the actual game, a "house rule", that is up to everybody to agree on. That was a response to Philip. As I said, if a Resign button is present at the outcome, resigning is part of the agreed-upon rules. (I'm sure you don't expect your opponent or yourself to "resign at any time for whatever reason at all, no explanation, forewarning or apology required" when sitting down to play a game IRL for instance. So I don't think you necessarily disagree with what I was saying in that post if you re-read it.)

I REALLY like what you described here, how resign is a 'house rule'. Perhaps it could be a setting, like anything else, so that people who hate resigns (like me, I will keep playing through to the end even if it's impossible for me to win; it never occurred to me that it would be annoying to the winning player!!) could have that setting turned off and won't be matched with players who have it turned on? At this point, I pretty much only play with bots or in games where I know the other player IRL because I'm so irritated by saying to myself "ah, I will play a nice game of Dominion over my lunch break" only to have the other player resign halfway through, and then I'm not able to play a game through to conclusion because I don't have enough time.

[twasa]

And similarly, to Twasa: You quoted me a bit out of context there. It looks like I'm saying that whenever you enter into a game you agree to a binding contract to finish it. I was only trying to say that resigning a game is something outside of the actual game, a "house rule", that is up to everybody to agree on.

jeebus, I'm sorry if I quoted you out of context, but it appears to me that we depart from different positions.

I'd argue that the social contract to play any game, always includes the option to withdraw from playing. It need not be part of the game rules or agreed as a variant house rule.

In games like chess, as others have pointed out in other discussions about this topic, it is even considered poor form to not resign when the result of the game is clear in favour of your opponent.

In a 2 player game IRL, I still don't have a problem with resignation. We can proceed to a next game and possibly play more games in the time we have available. I do think it makes a difference with more than 2 players though and players can decide beforehand how to deal with it.

I think resignation is beneficial to the online game, since the other options are to stop playing until your opponent can force you to resign or to close the browser window. That 4 minute wait feels like punishment. :-)

[SkyHard]

Completely removing the resign button would be a very bad idea (especially, since an infinite game is possible and who has that much time?).

[twasa]

SkyHard, infinite games can easily be ended. Both players stop playing until one times out. The result may not be pleasing though. One gets awarded a win, when a draw is probably a fairer result.

[jeebus]

In a 2 player game IRL, I still don't have a problem with resignation. We can proceed to a next game and possibly play more games in the time we have available. I do think it makes a difference with more than 2 players though and players can decide beforehand how to deal with it.

I still don't think you would be okay with your opponent just walking away without a word, like you said. I even think you would expect them to ask if it's okay if they resign, at least in most cases. (Most games are not Chess.)

I think resignation is beneficial to the online game, since the other options are to stop playing until your opponent can force you to resign or to close the browser window. That 4 minute wait feels like punishment. :-)

Again: I have never advocated for removing the resign button.

Completely removing the resign button would be a very bad idea (especially, since an infinite game is possible and who has that much time?).

Yeah, isn't it great that this thread isn't about that at all?

[twasa]

I still don't think you would be okay with your opponent just walking away without a word, like you said. I even think you would expect them to ask if it's okay if they resign, at least in most cases. (Most games are not Chess.)

I think we really think about this differently.

No my opponent doesn't need my permission for what is already allowed. I cannot think of any reasonable grounds for refusing permission. Even if the other player should just walk away and not want to continue playing, it is their choice and I have no choice but to abide by it. I may be disappointed, but that is besides the point.

In a real life game, and often online, a game can end early because of a resignation and the players can play another. Or they don't.

[Rabid]

In a 2p game I would much rather my opponent just resign (Or say thanks for the game you win), than ask me for permission to resign.

If they ask my options are:
a) Say no and we play out a game that they are not enjoying.
Makes me feel bad, for "forcing" them to continue.

b) Say yes. Same outcome as if they didn't ask.

[Mick]

In a 2p game I would much rather my opponent just resign (Or say thanks for the game you win), than ask me for permission to resign.

If they ask my options are:
a) Say no and we play out a game that they are not enjoying.
Makes me feel bad, for "forcing" them to continue.

b) Say yes. Same outcome as if they didn't ask.

c) Say no, and they leave anyway.

[jeebus]

I think we really think about this differently.

No my opponent doesn't need my permission for what is already allowed. I cannot think of any reasonable grounds for refusing permission. Even if the other player should just walk away and not want to continue playing, it is their choice and I have no choice but to abide by it. I may be disappointed, but that is besides the point.

In a real life game, and often online, a game can end early because of a resignation and the players can play another. Or they don't.

Yes, we think about it differently, but you are not really addressing what I'm saying. Now you're talking about refusing permission to resign. If you go back and read what I wrote, I actually said the opposite of what you think I'm saying - that I would not refuse permission. The disappointment is exactly what I'm talking about. As I keep saying and you never reply to, you would not like it if your opponent walked away from the table without saying a word. In fact, how much you liked it would very much depend on exactly what they said as an explanation/excuse for resigning. And that would directly influence how much you'd elect to play with that person in the future. If for instance that person usually quits half-way through the game without saying a word and you have no idea why, you would stop playing with them. And the reason you would do that, is because they keep breaking this loosely defined social contract, which different people view differently and which depends on the game group and the circumstances, but which nevertheless is there, governing exactly how okay it is to resign in a given situation and the way it's okay to act at that moment.

[zeruf]

I feel like the bot thing is the best solution, since the problem seems to be someone quitting while you're in the middle of something. Since you are specifically talking about being able to resign on your opponent's turn, correct me if I'm wrong, but for you someone resigning during your turn without warning is the equivalent of your engine automatically shutting off and you stopping when you're in the middle of a street race because your opponent gave up. You might be thinking 'I wonder if I can draw my deck this turn' and just before you find out... it's over. I can understand how some people think that way and are disappointed by that situation but personally I'm just not one of those people.

[twasa]

jeebus,

Nobody, including me, would keep inviting a player in real life when they consistently stop playing early, for whatever reason. The investment in time and effort is just too much.

Playing online, it doesn't bother me at all. It is easy to find other players interested in playing a few games.

[jeebus]

Nobody, including me, would keep inviting a player in real life when they consistently stop playing early, for whatever reason. The investment in time and effort is just too much.

Great, then you do agree with my original point.

And you agree about the social contract. Actually, it even exists online, even with the resign button. If I resign 50% of the time on turn 6 when we play, no explanation given, you would pretty soon want to blacklist me. So even online, even though some of us don't expect an explanation, we do expect that there is a legitimate reason.

[twasa]

No, why would I blacklist you? The only players I'd ever blacklist would be those with sexist or racist usernames (in my estimation) or those who slow play me. I've even gotten used to ignoring those who trash talk you in the chat when they're losing. I'd happily keep playing you if you keep on resigning early.

[Mike Thicke]

And you agree about the social contract. Actually, it even exists online, even with the resign button. If I resign 50% of the time on turn 6 when we play, no explanation given, you would pretty soon want to blacklist me. So even online, even though some of us don't expect an explanation, we do expect that there is a legitimate reason.

This whole thread is absurd. If I screw up the opening in chess and put myself in a losing position against a competent opponent, I'm not going to sit around for 30 minutes waiting for my inevitable loss. I'm going to resign and move on to the next game. I can see how you might derive some enjoyment from gradually exploiting your advantage over many turns picking off my pieces one-by-one, but what incentive do I have to participate in that? I'm not a masochist.

Similarly, in Dominion while I can see how you might enjoy playing out your engine over several turns after you gain an insurmountable lead, what incentive do I have to participate? Why should I suffer for 10 more minutes while you parade to victory? Accept your victory and move on. Resigning is never unsportsmanlike.

[SkyHard]

an insurmountable lead, what incentive do I have to participate?

What is insurmountable? And how can you tell?

Of course, it is your choice. I am just wondering.

[jsh]

an insurmountable lead, what incentive do I have to participate?

What is insurmountable? And how can you tell?

Of course, it is your choice. I am just wondering.

There are plenty of cases where one can easily tell when they have no chance of winning. One of the simplest is if there are literally not enough points left in the supply for the losing player to catch up. When this happens to me, I always resign. The rest of the game is a waste of time by any metric.

There are also cases in which the opponent simply recognized a possible deck you didn't, and that deck has so much more pile control and economy that you stand no chance of winning unless they misplay. Sure, you can hold out hope that they do, but sometimes I prefer to give my opponent the benefit of a doubt in those cases since I wouldn't feel great about winning such a game anyway.

You also might choose to resign if you're being Possessed multiple times each turn or facing an extremely click-heavy, but superior, deck. It's completely reasonable to just accept defeat.

There are other cases; these are just off the top of my head.

[AdamH]

Put me in the category of not sure why this debate is even taking place.

The comparison to IRL board games is something I don't think applies to the online game. In tabletop games people don't just disappear in the middle of something, but if someone's power/internet goes out that's basically what happens online. There has to be a graceful way of handling it that doesn't involve the player who did nothing wrong waiting around forever in hopes of their opponent coming back.

Providing the opponent a graceful way of telling the client that they are peacing out and not returning to the game is a really obvious thing that needs to exist. If there are any restrictions placed on this, the opponent is just going to pull the plug if they want out, so there should be no restrictions on this. That graceful thing is called the resign button.

Whatever problems people have with etiquette on resigning are not fixed by restricting when/how people can resign, because they can just pull the plug and leave, which causes all the same issues we had with resigning, only now you have to wait 4 minutes because you took away the opponent's ability to tell you they're not coming back.

[SkyHard]

Thanks jsh. That does make sense. For some a 3/4 split against a 5/2 is already enough. Well, everyone has his own rules as to what is insurmountable. :-/

@AdamH: I am not debating the resign button - which I think is important. I just want to understand.

[AdamH]

Sure, I feel you. I wasn't weighing in on that part of the debate. I'll never get mad at anyone for resigning and in most cases I'll ask for permission before I resign. But that's just me.

[Cave-O-Sapien]

I wish this forum had a means of providing thumbs ups. Lots of good discussion and great points being made here by AdamH, jsh, Mike Thicke and others.

[AdamH]

I also wish this forum had a way of giving thumbs-ups. Some great comments being made by Cave-O-Sapien!

And he even did it on reply #55. Could it get better?

:-P

[Jacob Marley]

The discussion of the ethics of resigning is one that we may never completely agree on, and from a developer perspective is irrelevant since I don't see any way they remove the resign button in response to those who don't like it.

What we can profitably discuss is the mechanics of how resign works.  I see three options:
1.  As currently implemented
2.  Resign only allowed during your turn
3.  Resign any time, but put up a text box saying "Game Ends:  Player ___ Resigns" and you click "Ok" before going to the score screen. 

I favor 3.  That way as the non-resigning player, you know why the game ended, and can have some closure. 

In fact, having the same box pop up for all game ending events seems like a good idea.  For instance, "Game Ends:   Province pile empty" or "Game Ends:  Three piles empty"

[AdamH]

Ethics or not, option 2 is not viable for the reasons I stated above. People will leave the game whenever they want, and if they can't click a resign button, they will just close the window. Any restrictions on when people are allowed to resign will just make things worse.

[SkyHard]

What do you need the text box for? On the end screen you will see that the other player resigned.

Option 2 is indeed not viable.

[JunkDealer]

What do you need the text box for? On the end screen you will see that the other player resigned.

Jacob's suggestion was I think combining the resignation issue with the sudden and hard to determine game ending issue.

I think this delves into a different debate, but I'll add my 2 cents anyhow.  The end screen is too abrupt as it is (without final turns often being played and no obvious indication why a game ended).  I still feel a certain disappointment/shock when it comes up and I sit there for a minute trying to figure out why the game ended.  I should note that if I'm the one to end it and I have deliberately ended it (ie triggered it knowingly) I don't feel the same way, but sometimes I'm less focused on the game and I'm the one who triggered the end and am not sure why it ended.

A pop up on resignation at least allows for a slightly less abrupt end in that case.  However, I think if the game end condition was more obvious on the score screen (in all cases) I would be less concerned with a sudden Game Over! 

[SkyHard]

The end screen is too abrupt as it is

I totally agree. Especially against a bot it is really annoying. But that is another thing and has already been reported.

[Jacob Marley]

The way I was envisioning it is that the text box overlays the gameboard (like the current box giving the status of play), so you have a message as to what just happened (the game ended) rather than just being jerked out of the game screen to the end screen.  It's more psychological than anything else.  The way I see it, part of the problem is that the game ends abruptly and pulls you to a different screen.  Even if the information is there in the post game screen, I have not caught up mentally, so the game feels somehow incomplete.  But maybe its just me.

[jeebus]

This whole thread is absurd. If I screw up the opening in chess and put myself in a losing position against a competent opponent, I'm not going to sit around for 30 minutes waiting for my inevitable loss.

This whole thread is not about removing the option to resign, as you for some weird (and absurd) reason seem to think.

[jeebus]

Whatever problems people have with etiquette on resigning are not fixed by restricting when/how people can resign, because they can just pull the plug and leave, which causes all the same issues we had with resigning, only now you have to wait 4 minutes because you took away the opponent's ability to tell you they're not coming back.

I understand that this is a legitimate concern. But I don't remember it being a problem on Isotropic, even after the influx of new players caused some forum participants to wonder about the "loss of civility" in the game chat.

And as I stated above, the player who pulls the plug also has to wait the full 4 minutes to start another game, so I can't believe that in almost all cases, the player wouldn't just rather wait until their turn to resign.

[TheDetour]

I definitely think that the game should do a better job of communicating why the game is over.

As far as etiquette, I don't think I have a position on it.  I do know that I like it far better than people saying "GG" after a game... particularly a lopsided win.  I hate that more than anything in the entire game probably.

[Cave-O-Sapien]

I definitely think that the game should do a better job of communicating why the game is over.

As far as etiquette, I don't think I have a position on it.  I do know that I like it far better than people saying "GG" after a game... particularly a lopsided win.  I hate that more than anything in the entire game probably.

Honestly curious here: what is the appropriate thing to say after a game in which you destroy your opponent?

"gg" can mean so many different things...

[Jacob Marley]

"Thanks for the Game" seems neutral enough, though many people do not stay long enough to see it, but that's ok too.

[Sharajat]

The person who lost is the person who says gg or whatever.  If you won, don't say anything until they do.

If you have to, "Thanks for the games" is appropriate. 

Bonus douche points if you say gg when the game is several turns away from completing. 

[jeebus]

Bonus douche points if you say gg when the game is several turns away from completing.

Even saying it during your last turn right before you're about to win is pretty douchy to me.

[Donald X.]

Why not? Having a resign button is a variant in any case, just like a VP counter. The rules say nothing about being able to resign.

When I say "I'm not playing this game anymore," that's an action I take outside the game. The game rules don't cover that and can't cover that. So no, it's not a variant.

Obviously with no other options I can always resign a computer game by just closing the tab. So you should be able to more-gracefully resign at any time, like you can, hooray.

Obviously if anyone is sad they didn't get to see their big turn finish, the solution is to let them keep playing against an AI. There's no need to make a human suffer through it.

[kieranmillar]

I'm surprised many people seem to think saying gg counts as being douchy. I try to say it after every game because I thought it was considered polite. Also because at the end of every game my browser freezes for a short while while it reveals all of the log details I try to say it just before I end the game otherwise people tend to leave before I get to say anything or respond to their gg and I figured not being seen to say anything made me look rude.

Should I not be doing this?

[AdamH]

I'm surprised many people seem to think saying gg counts as being douchy. I try to say it after every game because I thought it was considered polite. Also because at the end of every game my browser freezes for a short while while it reveals all of the log details I try to say it just before I end the game otherwise people tend to leave before I get to say anything or respond to their gg and I figured not being seen to say anything made me look rude.

Should I not be doing this?

There is nothing you can do that will please everyone on this front -- someone will manage to find what you do rude.

My solution is "you do you bae"

Sometimes I feel like typing gg, sometimes I don't. I just like to let the universe decide.

[jeebus]

Why not? Having a resign button is a variant in any case, just like a VP counter. The rules say nothing about being able to resign.

When I say "I'm not playing this game anymore," that's an action I take outside the game. The game rules don't cover that and can't cover that. So no, it's not a variant.

Obviously with no other options I can always resign a computer game by just closing the tab. So you should be able to more-gracefully resign at any time, like you can, hooray.

Obviously if anyone is sad they didn't get to see their big turn finish, the solution is to let them keep playing against an AI. There's no need to make a human suffer through it.

Ok, "variant" was the wrong word then. I just meant that there is nothing in the Dominion rules that say that you have to have a resign button to properly implement it, exactly as is the case for the VP counter. (As a reply to Philip who seemed to suggest that was the case.) It's just that not having it (resign button or VP counter) creates certain problems.

I definitely agree that it's much better to have a resign button. I don't think it needs to be there when it's not your turn. I'm quite convinced that it would not create any significant problems for anybody if it was just there on your turn. It would create a problem though, namely that some players sometimes have to wait for a little bit more time than they would have liked (that time being less than one turn). It would also solve a problem, which I have outlined before. Many people might see that problem as being a small one too. In the end I don't think it would impact the majority of people in a huge way either way.

[Donald X.]

I definitely agree that it's much better to have a resign button. I don't think it needs to be there when it's not your turn. I'm quite convinced that it would not create any significant problems for anybody if it was just there on your turn. It would create a problem though, namely that some players sometimes have to wait for a little bit more time than they would have liked (that time being less than one turn). It would also solve a problem, which I have outlined before. Many people might see that problem as being a small one too. In the end I don't think it would impact the majority of people in a huge way either way.

The lack of a button on other players' turns would not cause players to wait longer than they would have liked; it would cause them to close the tab. It's just strictly negative.

[jeebus]

The lack of a button on other players' turns would not cause players to wait longer than they would have liked; it would cause them to close the tab. It's just strictly negative.

Sure, that could happen too. But as I learned through this thread, they would punish themselves by having to wait for significantly more time. So I would think (maybe after a certain period of people realizing this) this behavior would not be very common. But I acknowledge that it could happen more than currently. Both of these things (having to wait longer, closing the tab) are negative. I don't know what you mean with "strictly negative", unless you're saying that what I outlined in the OP is 0% of a problem. Well, it isn't, since some people, me included, regard it as more than that.

[SkyHard]

The lack of a button on other players' turns would not cause players to wait longer than they would have liked; it would cause them to close the tab. It's just strictly negative.

Sure, that could happen too. But as I learned through this thread, they would punish themselves by having to wait for significantly more time. So I would think (maybe after a certain period of people realizing this) this behavior would not be very common. But I acknowledge that it could happen more than currently. Both of these things (having to wait longer, closing the tab) are negative. I don't know what you mean with "strictly negative", unless you're saying that what I outlined in the OP is 0% of a problem. Well, it isn't, since some people, me included, regard it as more than that.

If your opponent closes the tab instead of resigning, YOU will have to wait (or resign). The opponent will probably not care and come back at a much later time and only you will feel the consequences.

[jeebus]

If your opponent closes the tab instead of resigning, YOU will have to wait (or resign). The opponent will probably not care and come back at a much later time and only you will feel the consequences.

You will both have to wait before you can play again. But yes, you're right that if you care about your rating (in the future when that will be recorded), then you have to wait in front of your computer, unlike the quitter. I'm pretty certain a sound alert will be implemented when it's your turn, and of course it will also sound when you get the force-resign prompt. So you could be doing other things on your computer. But yes, there will be a slightly bigger punishment to you, you have to stay put.

[Donald X.]

Sure, that could happen too. But as I learned through this thread, they would punish themselves by having to wait for significantly more time.

They are sitting at a computer, the best toy ever. Probably they can find something to do on it for a few minutes, if they are locked out of starting Dominion games.

I feel like the topic has been covered, the solution is straightforward, it's to let you keep playing against AI if your opponent quits. That's also nice when they quit during their own turn. Having some situation where you can't resign is obviously not ideal, and any desire someone might have for that is alleviated by the AI solution.

[jeebus]

As far as switching to AI... Sounds like a lot more work to implement. And it's still going to foster the bad form of resigning a few seconds before the game is over. If I was about to buy the last Province, it doesn't really make a difference if I do it against a bot. I'll still feel like I was subjected to a rage quit or at least an annoyed gesture. Switching to bot makes more sense if someone resigns earlier in the game. But of course, since the bot will probably be terrible at playing the other player's deck, it's not really going to tell me much about how the game would have played out.

[Donald X.]

As far as switching to AI... Sounds like a lot more work to implement. And it's still going to foster the bad form of resigning a few seconds before the game is over. If I was about to buy the last Province, it doesn't really make a difference if I do it against a bot. I'll still feel like I was subjected to a rage quit or at least an annoyed gesture. Switching to bot makes more sense if someone resigns earlier in the game. But of course, since the bot will probably be terrible at playing the other player's deck, it's not really going to tell me much about how the game would have played out.

Switching to AI is what's going to happen though! After a period however long in which it works like it does now. Stef said it sounded good and then I said it was the move and your argument sure hasn't swayed me.

[serakfalcon]

As far as switching to AI... Sounds like a lot more work to implement. And it's still going to foster the bad form of resigning a few seconds before the game is over. If I was about to buy the last Province, it doesn't really make a difference if I do it against a bot. I'll still feel like I was subjected to a rage quit or at least an annoyed gesture. Switching to bot makes more sense if someone resigns earlier in the game. But of course, since the bot will probably be terrible at playing the other player's deck, it's not really going to tell me much about how the game would have played out.

Switching to AI is what's going to happen though! After a period however long in which it works like it does now. Stef said it sounded good and then I said it was the move and your argument sure hasn't swayed me.

If I can offer my 2 cents, I think it would be nice to have the option to end the game immediately or replace the player with an AI. I'm not sure if that's what you are assuming or whether you expect that the game will be forced to be played to the end, except with an AI replacing one of the players.

[SkyHard]

As far as switching to AI... Sounds like a lot more work to implement. And it's still going to foster the bad form of resigning a few seconds before the game is over. If I was about to buy the last Province, it doesn't really make a difference if I do it against a bot. I'll still feel like I was subjected to a rage quit or at least an annoyed gesture. Switching to bot makes more sense if someone resigns earlier in the game. But of course, since the bot will probably be terrible at playing the other player's deck, it's not really going to tell me much about how the game would have played out.

Switching to AI is what's going to happen though! After a period however long in which it works like it does now. Stef said it sounded good and then I said it was the move and your argument sure hasn't swayed me.

If I can offer my 2 cents, I think it would be nice to have the option to end the game immediately or replace the player with an AI. I'm not sure if that's what you are assuming or whether you expect that the game will be forced to be played to the end, except with an AI replacing one of the players.

You can't force anyone to finish a game ;)
And yes, I would like that option.

[Jacob Marley]

As far as switching to AI... Sounds like a lot more work to implement. And it's still going to foster the bad form of resigning a few seconds before the game is over. If I was about to buy the last Province, it doesn't really make a difference if I do it against a bot. I'll still feel like I was subjected to a rage quit or at least an annoyed gesture. Switching to bot makes more sense if someone resigns earlier in the game. But of course, since the bot will probably be terrible at playing the other player's deck, it's not really going to tell me much about how the game would have played out.

Switching to AI is what's going to happen though! After a period however long in which it works like it does now. Stef said it sounded good and then I said it was the move and your argument sure hasn't swayed me.

If I can offer my 2 cents, I think it would be nice to have the option to end the game immediately or replace the player with an AI. I'm not sure if that's what you are assuming or whether you expect that the game will be forced to be played to the end, except with an AI replacing one of the players.

You can't force anyone to finish a game ;)
And yes, I would like that option.

Furthermore, you should be able in your personal settings to select
1. Always replace resigning player with AI
2. Always ask whether to replace resigning player with AI
3. Never replace resigning player with AI

Personally, when my opponent resigns, I just am glad for the win and move on.

This of course is for 2p.  for 3+, replacing resigning players should be automatic until there is only one human left at the table at which point they can decide whether to take the win or continue playing.

[IceHot]

I see no reason why resigning should be available unless it's your turn. That was how it was implemented on Isotropic and I can't remember anybody ever questioning it. I can't remember how it was implemented on Goko/MF.

I see no reason not to be able to resign on my opponents turn.  Opponents taking their turn can easily be far more disrepectful then the player who resigns.

When there is one Duchy left to end the game and you are up by 20 points and keep playing Margrave over and over with 30 coins in the bank that is disrepectful.  Just end the game and lets move to the next game.

[Donald X.]

If I can offer my 2 cents, I think it would be nice to have the option to end the game immediately or replace the player with an AI. I'm not sure if that's what you are assuming or whether you expect that the game will be forced to be played to the end, except with an AI replacing one of the players.

For sure, if you want to just take the win, you should be able to. I would go so far as to say, it should chalk it up as a win ratings-wise, and then, you can play it out if you want.

[jeebus]

Switching to AI is what's going to happen though! After a period however long in which it works like it does now. Stef said it sounded good and then I said it was the move and your argument sure hasn't swayed me.

Right, I already got that it was going to happen. I still stand by my arguments for the pros and cons, and I acknowledge that there are pros and cons for both sides. I just didn't agree with your assessment of how there are only downsides to what I was advocating, nor your claim that an AI would solve the problems I was describing.

[gitsticker8]

First time poster, just wanted to chip in my 2c.  I believe the option to resign should remain available at all points of the game.

Removing the resign option opens the game up to abuse by the players whose turn it is.  They can simply draw out their turn and prevent the other player from leaving and starting a new game.  Removing vulnerabilities to abuse should be very high on the priority list compared to encouraging good sportsmanship in my opinion.

Someone who wants to quit and start a new game should be entitled to do so whenever they want.  It may mean the difference between them starting a new game or closing the tab and doing something else.  We all benefit from more players playing more games.