Resigning during opponents' turn

[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.