Incentive to surrender?

I was looking at the new "SP pool" screen and had an idea - what if losing and surrendering became two different things?

Like, if you surrendered before you were completely screwed, you would receive more SP when you left. It could work kind of the same way a country who gets completely destroyed and occupied (Nazi Germany) ends up losing everything, whereas a country beaten (WW1 Germany) would just have to pay large reparations and be bullied a little.

basically, getting your cap taken would be an unconditional surrender (you only get half your SP), and surrendering while your just losing would be conditional surrender (Half your SP + some extra SP for the value of all the lands you hold).

This would give surrendering a purpose and make it a more interesting feature.


Thoughts?

I think that sounds like a good idea. I really like the idea that your land should impact your gained SP from defeat. Solves the whole "waiting until you're almost dead and then surrendering for extra SP" fiasco I'd have imagined would come with the idea.

I've never really been one for surrendering because I thought "Why give them the satisfaction of an easy win when I get even more SP from fighting?", so I can definitely see how this would impact gameplay for a lot of people.

I really think this is a good idea. I support it.

No, i don't think there should be an incentive to surrender, because the moment people think they are going to lose, they will surrender, and ruin a fight that would actually be good if they had any balls.

Complex issue TBH.
Personally I like the idea of rewarding someone who fights tooth and nail to the bitter end but I also like the idea of an honourable surrender being accepted.

Remember that (as in the WWI vs. WWII example) there is a difference between conditional surrender and unconditional surrender.

I favour there being a difference, making it work however....

Objectives;

1 - Avoid encouraging players to quit as soon as they are slightly behind - many do this too much already.
2 - Give players who have definitely lost some benefit from surrendering.

Maybe you can offer a conditional surrender? Has to be accepted by the other side?

Or something based on your position. You could measure strength by; Total value of units/total income/something else.

If you quit while at 75% or more of the opponent's strength you get no benefit.
If you surrender while between 25% and 75% you get a benefit for surrendering.
If you wait till you are below 25% you get ever reducing benefit.

(all my numbers are arbitrary)

What do people think -0 most importantly have I missed any objectives?

No, if anything there should be an incentive for fighting to the end instead of surrendering the moment your opponent has the advantage.

Skrivet av Crispin, 19.06.2012 at 09:17

Complex issue TBH.
Personally I like the idea of rewarding someone who fights tooth and nail to the bitter end but I also like the idea of an honourable surrender being accepted.

Remember that (as in the WWI vs. WWII example) there is a difference between conditional surrender and unconditional surrender.

I favour there being a difference, making it work however....

Objectives;

1 - Avoid encouraging players to quit as soon as they are slightly behind - many do this too much already.
2 - Give players who have definitely lost some benefit from surrendering.

Maybe you can offer a conditional surrender? Has to be accepted by the other side?

Or something based on your position. You could measure strength by; Total value of units/total income/something else.

If you quit while at 75% or more of the opponent's strength you get no benefit.
If you surrender while between 25% and 75% you get a benefit for surrendering.
If you wait till you are below 25% you get ever reducing benefit.

(all my numbers are arbitrary)

What do people think -0 most importantly have I missed any objectives?

the problem is, this is hard to manage.

for example if a SM player is playing against a IMP player. the IMP player would of course have many many more units because the cheaper cost.
also, going of city and country amounts doesn't work because like in europe, there is a much higher density of city and contries, but the west is strong enough to fight of a large amount of east cities.
also, reinforcement to money ratios wouldn't work because once again alot of strategies can work with low money.

i still vote that there should be absoloutely no incentive to surrender.
what i think, is that if you lose, and don't surrender, you get 60% of your sp, and the enemy gets 40%
and if you surrender, you get 40% of your sp, and the enemy gets 60%
and if you leave, the enemy gets 100% of your sp, and you get 0%

honestly i don't mind losing the 10% and them gaining the 10% or even more wouldn't bother me because all i care about is having a good challenging game, and if i'm fighting for longer, i will still get more sp anyway.

in sp pool it will show. the amount of sp you will get if you surrender, or lose.
and it will also show the amount of sp you will win if all enemies, surrender, lose or leave.
also, getting 60% will be nice for people who get ally fagged and stick it through to the end, because i will probably still end up getting more sp than them because i am fighting 3 people at once.

Skrivet av nonames, 19.06.2012 at 08:42

No, i don't think there should be an incentive to surrender, because the moment people think they are going to lose, they will surrender, and ruin a fight that would actually be good if they had any balls.

cant agree more!!

Skrivet av babisili, 19.06.2012 at 10:05

Skrivet av nonames, 19.06.2012 at 08:42

No, i don't think there should be an incentive to surrender, because the moment people think they are going to lose, they will surrender, and ruin a fight that would actually be good if they had any balls.

cant agree more!!

Well then, couldn't they only get a smaller fraction of extra SP to make it to the point where it's not worth quitting? Where, if they had a HUGE army, they would get more SP by fighting till they're close to defeat (like it is now)?

Skrivet av Mr. Kurtz, 19.06.2012 at 11:04

Skrivet av babisili, 19.06.2012 at 10:05

Skrivet av nonames, 19.06.2012 at 08:42

No, i don't think there should be an incentive to surrender, because the moment people think they are going to lose, they will surrender, and ruin a fight that would actually be good if they had any balls.

cant agree more!!

Well then, couldn't they only get a smaller fraction of extra SP to make it to the point where it's not worth quitting? Where, if they had a HUGE army, they would get more SP by fighting till they're close to defeat (like it is now)?

i think it would be better if u surrender u get no sp if u lose u get 60%of your sp.That would stop ppl from surrendering.

Agree with babi

No, 0% is not fair
40% is much better,
60% for losing

No my troops will always fight to the death for honor and glory! We wont back down... we will fight the bastards untill we meet them face to face. surrendering is just for pussies.

Hmmmm I like the idea of haveing a conditional surrender, but I beleive you all have changed my mind. I do like what Arbliterated said though. about the 60-40.

So we've started with the idea of incentives for surrendering, but now it's more about incentives for continuing the fight to the bitter end. I don't understand this thread

Skrivet av Ivan, 19.06.2012 at 13:49

So we've started with the idea of incentives for surrendering, but now it's more about incentives for continuing the fight to the bitter end. I don't understand this thread

I, and mostly everyone else reading this thread believe incentives for fighting to the end should be implaced because it will encourage people to keep fighting even when in difficult situations, which will mean they may have to adjust strategies and will eventually breed better players, and a more enjoyable games.

the main problem we have atm is that their is no difference between surrendering and losing.

i think, if you are a good sport, and do your best to fight to the death, you should be rewarded with 60% of your sp, yet if surrender at the first sign of trouble, you only get 40%
this will also mean, your enemies will 40% of your if you fight on (but will be balanced by them getting more for fighting you)
and if you surrender, your enemy gets 60% of your sp (lets think of this as a nice thing that happens if your enemy is a woman and decides to surrender as the first sign of trouble )

also if you leave, your enemy should get 60% of your sp too.

The incomprehensibility is due to a very wooly thought process, both collectively and in some cases, individually.

If someone recognises that they face inevitable defeat after 30+ more minutes should they be encouraged to surrender?

If Captain Craven gives up at the 1st failure should he be penalised?

From a very personal point of view - should some idiot who parks next to a lower ranked player and flat out attacks them be penalised when they fail on turn 3-5 and then quit (it's a yes from me)!


The process should be this;

First - define what you wish to achieve.
Second - see what is possible, and reject the impossibel
Third - See what is practical
Fourth - Analyse the potential side effects.

I suggest that we focus first and foremost on the objectives - what do we want to encourage, what do we want to discourage?

I still believe anyone who surrenders should get 0% to 20% based on the numbers of turns he played if its more than half turns of the max turns of the game i guess 50% would be fair.

Or this. fight to the end and dieing = 60% surrender =20% leave = 0 sp

Skrivet av Donald J.Trump, 19.06.2012 at 18:31

Or this. fight to the end and dieing = 60% surrender =20% leave = 0 sp

thats good too.

If they haven't played for long, 40% won't give them much anyway and they will leave, if they have, and they have gained enough sp where they think 40% is enough to surrender, then 40% is fair, 20% is too harsh. and a downer to people who genuinely have things come up and have to surrrender.

I think that this entire thread is change for the sake of change. The current system really isn't problematic. Sometimes surrendering is simply convenient and there is no reason to punish it.

There was a point to it.

There are players who quit on turn 3-5 after wrecking someone else's game for a variety of reasons.
My experience is that they make a 3 turn blitzkrieg on you trying to take your capital and then quit if they lose.
I'm finding it happens with some degree of frequency, 1/4 games - was more when I was low ranked which says a lot about the who, what and why of it happening.