Auto-Disband upon Surrender

If the judge doesn't behave correctly or you found another problem, report it here!
Forum rules
Bugs
In addition to the general Forum Guidelines (see here: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=15441), there are additional rules for posting in this forum.
1. Members should read the ‘Bugs Forum Guidelines’ thread.
2. In rare situations members have been known to post false bug reports in order to affect the game. This is considered cheating.
3. Please don't post information that might be detrimental to the game, such as revealing the power who sent a message. If further information is required by Admin to investigate the bug, you will be asked to provide it.
If the game a bug may have occurred in is anonymous, including Gunboat and Public Press Only, it is best to send a Private Message to the SITE HELP! group or to post using the Dolph Shtoss account rather than break anonymity.

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby super_dipsy » 20 Apr 2017, 09:16

Hmm. OK I must be insane. Plenty of people tell me that 8-)

I simply reacted to the fact that at the end of the Surrender code it makes the 'finalize orders' call for the country that is surrendering. I assumed that would act as I have described, but I did not bother to dig down to see what it actually does. I will look into it and confirm one way or the other. I will also try to find out if it was changed and when and why.

I feel very surreal :?
User avatar
super_dipsy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10698
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (956)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby super_dipsy » 20 Apr 2017, 16:29

I have dig and dug and dug :)

There is no doubt that we USED to deal with a Surrender by NOT counting it as a Finalize - so in the turn the surrender happened the turn would not finish early (unless the surrendering country had already finalized) but would run the full length. For following turns, when the country starts the phase as surrendered, it is not counted in the finalizing calculation and so the turn CAN be sped up by other players. I know this because I found a complaint in 2012 that this was happening and the players did not like it. I suspect this is why the game options say what they say - it was the way it was.

But at some point in 2012, it appears we did put the change in so that a player surrendering in a turn could not hold up the turn. This was what I said I thought I remembered earlier in the thread. I just can't see exactly when.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10698
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (956)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby Jack007 » 20 Apr 2017, 17:00

Wouldn't it be better if a surrender would slow down the turn instead of speeding it up (or giving the other players the possibility to speed it up, which comes to the same), so that a potential substitute has a better chance to find an intact country?
Jack007 (3 Stars)
Member of the Honorables
Singer of the Praises

There is no greater solitude than the samurai's, unless it be that of the tiger in the jungle… perhaps…
- Bushido (The book of the samurais)
User avatar
Jack007
Premium Member
 
Posts: 556
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 17:34
Location: Brest
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1183
All-game rating: 1551
Timezone: GMT

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby super_dipsy » 20 Apr 2017, 17:09

Jack007 wrote:Wouldn't it be better if a surrender would slow down the turn instead of speeding it up (or giving the other players the possibility to speed it up, which comes to the same), so that a potential substitute has a better chance to find an intact country?

That was exactly the argument used initially to have the code the way it was :)

But the counter argument which by the look of it won the day back in 2012 was that this meant people could leave your game to force it to go for the full tunr. So for example, a playe who is down to one SC might just decide to surrender at the start of a turn to cause you maximum pain. The country is unlikely to be picked up, so the is no choice but wait the game out. Having said that, Protected games changed the picture because players who value a game where no turns are missed a lot more highly canplay game where the turn is extended to give maximum time for a replacement.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10698
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (956)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby Jack007 » 20 Apr 2017, 19:01

super_dipsy wrote:...
But the counter argument which by the look of it won the day back in 2012 was that this meant people could leave your game to force it to go for the full tunr. So for example, a playe who is down to one SC might just decide to surrender at the start of a turn to cause you maximum pain. The country is unlikely to be picked up, so the is no choice but wait the game out. Having said that, Protected games changed the picture because players who value a game where no turns are missed a lot more highly canplay game where the turn is extended to give maximum time for a replacement.

This logic I just cannot understand. If somebody wants to force it to go for the full turn, he could simply not finalize instead of surrender. And yes, with one or two SCs left, the chance to find a substitute is minimal. On the other hand, everybody had agreed to a certain deadline time. It's a misconception to expect there could be a choice for shorter turns (except when EVERYBODY consents). So you know from the beginning that you have to "wait the game out". Winning IS painful.
Jack007 (3 Stars)
Member of the Honorables
Singer of the Praises

There is no greater solitude than the samurai's, unless it be that of the tiger in the jungle… perhaps…
- Bushido (The book of the samurais)
User avatar
Jack007
Premium Member
 
Posts: 556
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 17:34
Location: Brest
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1183
All-game rating: 1551
Timezone: GMT

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby Nibbler » 22 Apr 2017, 10:33

Jack007 wrote:
super_dipsy wrote:...
But the counter argument which by the look of it won the day back in 2012 was that this meant people could leave your game to force it to go for the full tunr. So for example, a playe who is down to one SC might just decide to surrender at the start of a turn to cause you maximum pain. The country is unlikely to be picked up, so the is no choice but wait the game out. Having said that, Protected games changed the picture because players who value a game where no turns are missed a lot more highly canplay game where the turn is extended to give maximum time for a replacement.

This logic I just cannot understand. If somebody wants to force it to go for the full turn, he could simply not finalize instead of surrender. And yes, with one or two SCs left, the chance to find a substitute is minimal. On the other hand, everybody had agreed to a certain deadline time. It's a misconception to expect there could be a choice for shorter turns (except when EVERYBODY consents). So you know from the beginning that you have to "wait the game out". Winning IS painful.

I suppose you're correct, Jack, in a situation where a player was simply aiming to delay the game for some reason. Not necessarily where a player is going to surrender and wants to delay the game for some reason.

I think the basic thinking seems sound. A power which is uncontrolled shouldn't be holding a game up because the game can't finalise if every other player in the game finalises. That would be hugely frustrating, possibly depending on the deadlines (then again, I suppose if you're playing 12 hr deadlines then and unnecessary delay is frustrating - I wouldn't know :) ).

With most operating rules there is going to be a situation where the rule seems to be counter-productive, and this might rightly be one of them.

One of the questions I think I'd want answering is whether the OP organised the permanent replacement: did he arrange for the replacement to take over his position and the time at which the surrender/switch would take place? If so, were the arrangements kept to?

Either way, perhaps the workaround is to play protected games - providing time for a replacement to pick up the CD power seems to be the reason for having this option on the site, which seems to me a great idea.
Respect neither opinions nor beliefs; only respect the person and the right to express them.
Play by the rules but be ferocious.
User avatar
Nibbler
Premium Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 09:27
Location: Yorkshire
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 974
All-game rating: 974
Timezone: GMT

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby Jack007 » 22 Apr 2017, 18:38

I'm looking at it from another side. You have agreed to play a game with certain deadlines. So, when a turn takes its full length for what reason ever, there's nothing to be frustrated about, except about yourself who have eventually agreed to a game with deadlines you cannot endure. Next time you'll do better and join a game with shorter deadlines.
Now, as a bonus gift, the site gives the opportunity to shorten the time, IF all countries consent to that explicitly by finalizing. A country in social disorder cannot consent, so there's no bonus gift, but just the normal status. How can one be frustrated when everything goes it's normal way?
If people are really in a hurry, then their only chance would be to kill off the surrendered country as quick as possible, and then to talk everybody into finalizing.
To say, that a surrendered power should act like it had finalized right at the beginning of each turn benefits unjustly the players of the adjacent countries (who already benefit by the surrender itself), as it lowers the chance that a substitute would take over the abandoned country.
The game's mechanism on this matter should be reset to the state before 2012. Just my 2p.
Jack007 (3 Stars)
Member of the Honorables
Singer of the Praises

There is no greater solitude than the samurai's, unless it be that of the tiger in the jungle… perhaps…
- Bushido (The book of the samurais)
User avatar
Jack007
Premium Member
 
Posts: 556
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 17:34
Location: Brest
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1183
All-game rating: 1551
Timezone: GMT

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby Nibbler » 23 Apr 2017, 09:05

You could be right. Suggestions seems the best placed for that, though, as it isn't a bug, I guess.
Respect neither opinions nor beliefs; only respect the person and the right to express them.
Play by the rules but be ferocious.
User avatar
Nibbler
Premium Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 09:27
Location: Yorkshire
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 974
All-game rating: 974
Timezone: GMT

Re: Auto-Disband upon Surrender

Postby Carebear » 23 Apr 2017, 10:36

It sounds like to me the current situation provides players a choice for how they want to play. The default setting accelerates play, which is probably good for casual and newbie games. The more competitive or connoisseur player can choose the protected option to provide maximum opportunity for a replacement.
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1573)
All-game rating: (1589)
Timezone: GMT+8

Previous

Return to Bugs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron