Well were at it, we should add a surrender button...:P

But I agree.

only France is allowed to use the surrender button thought :P

>>While the best option would of course be for everyone to play out every game until the end,...
** RIGHT!
>>If players are going to quit, I would rather they do it immediately than drag it out with all holds or, worse, CDs.
**If players are going to quit, we should not encourage them with a new button. I believe we should discourage them with a serious and more severe Reliability Rating System. This is the tool that should prevent quitters from joining too many games and screw them. If it doesn't prevent NMRs enough now, it's only because the current rule is too permissive, IMHO.

Also, typing somewhere in the Help menu what we expect from new users (IE, committing in games, no NMRs, no CDs, sportsmanshiply play a game until the end) could be useful.

Once again Guaroz, aka the Anonymous Police, is right.
Education and awareness is all is needed in the site.
IF these 2 qualities are not enough, well, we should force restrictions to some ill-mannered users (by a proper RR system).

Every user should be aware of the Victory Conditions of the game he is going to play.
I expect even more awareness from an experienced player as you are, raapers2.

Hey Guaroz and Decima, I think you did not get raapers point. He is not saying he wants an option for a player to leave a game! Everyone should play the games they have joined through to the end.
In most games, at a certain point, both players will know who will be the winner. In classic dip it might a be a year or something before the end. But with some variants it's already clear years ahead. Why not save everyone time?

If all players - except one - vote to concede, the remaining player gets the option to accept and will then win automatically. If any player does not agree it will not happen (just like draw, cancel and pause).

Sounds like a solid option to me.

both players = all players*
(I was thinking about one-on-one games, where such an option would be extremely useful)

This policy was discussed in the past and Oli's conclusion on the matter (which iirc had consensus among the mods) was that this concede button would encourage instant CDs and joining more games then one could handle and then dropping your worst game.

And as for Auto wins. There is no such thing as a guaranteed win. Multiple times in the past I have been in a game where I had a stalemate line under my control and all I had to do was finish taking all the behind the line scs. This is what is considered auto win. However of these multiple times, I have lost/drew the game twice, why? Because of misorders, I accidentally support held Munich instead of Berlin or vice versa and as a result, lost control of the stalemate line.

Until someone has 18 scs under their control during a builds phase, the game is not over.

Although this would save time, just play the game out until the end, its good sportsmanship and who knows, a misorder might allow you to prevent your enemy from winning.

Wow, it's hard to get the point across. I am not proposing an option for "dropping your worst game" (or your best game for that matter). And neither was raapers, i think.

All your points about sportsmanship are good, but they don't really apply. "There is no such thing as a guaranteed win". That's no reason to force every chess player to play until a checkmate...
Obviously only if everyone agrees in the way I describe above. So... if any of the players wish to play until that misorder happens, or that stupid mistake. That's fine.

Personally I don't like the diplomacy endgame that much, especiallly the "Auto wins" you describe above. I would rather play a new game, not that anything prevents me from joining a new game while finishing the old one, wich is exacly what I have always done!

I like sqrg and rappers points. I think having conceding only being an option if all the players in the game agree to it easily side steps the issue of people quitting games they are doing badly in.

Thanks for the help sqrg! I agree with everything you added.

Before I try and re-explain my idea and the benefits I think it would add, I'd like to address Guaroz's point. I agree that an explanation of the "reliability" ranking should be in the help section along with a disclaimer for new players that they should play out every game. I honestly don't think it will do any good because I highly doubt people CD because they didn't know any better. They CD because they don't care about the game.

I would estimate that at least 90% of all multi-player games have at least 1 player CD, either randomly or because they are losing. Clearly, then, the current system has done little to nothing to deter that unfortunate event. I am all for harsher penalties, and have, in the past, argued for some kind of point-tax being implemented against anyone who CD'd before the game was over (say 2x the original wager). It was shot down as not taking into account the random, accidental instances when someone forgets to put in their orders.

In any case, the concede button I envision would not do anything to encourage, or discourage, people from CDing early. It would act just* like draw and cancel buttons where they would signal your desire to end the game but have no actual impact until accepted by everyone. (* There would need to be a special feature for the person in first place where instead of clicking concede, and thus basically drawing with the remaining players, he would instead 'accept surrenders' and win.) As sqrg put it perfectly, in any version of chess I know of there is any option for the losing player to offer a surrender. The winning player can accept, or refuse and play to the end.

Finally, as to fasces' point, that there are no "automatic" wins, I disagree. Especially in 1-on-1 games there is very often a clear winner after only a few years, but both players are forced to play it out to the end instead of accepting the ultimate conclusion. Furthermore, and again, the concede button would not do anything to effect the "automatic"-ness of any win. If the losing player believes he still has a chance there is nothing forcing him to accept defeat. If you are the winning player, and the losing player chooses to concede rather than play it out, you can accept if all you want is the win, or you can refuse if what you really want is the enjoyment of playing it out. I dont think many players would opt to use this button in a 17-17 stalemate, or anything close. This would be for a 13-6 game when both sides know the end result.

If anything, I think the button would make the game purer. It would stop people who know the game is lost from dragging out the game with simple hold orders, or from suddenly stabbing allies "because they are bored", or, worst yet, from CDing.

@ raapers2 & sqrg.
My point is that such a 'surrender' button would be extremely useless, and even dangerous in some cases.

In over 200 games I played online, I've never felt the need of it.

Only one time it happened that a player was forced to put all hold last year because the game was basically over. In this gameID=3810. Even then, I didn't feel the need of it: I just wrote something on the Forum about the Victory Condition of Duo. Actually, since in Duo there are 28 SCs and the half is 14, put the VC at 19 instead of 15 or 16 looks rather pointless. Duo (look at threadID=23975) is the Variant with the harshest VC (68% of SCs) while is one of the maps with a lower SC Density: you need time to reach SCs in that ocean of non-SCs.
On the Forum, they told me that there is no reason to change the VC of a variant only because some lazy player doesn't want to bother putting all hold a couple of times: it takes 2 seconds. Well, they were right. So:
- How many times will you need the concede button? 1 out of 200? No, raapers says "very often". Mmmm. Who knows. Anyway:
- How much time would you save? a couple of seconds?
- My advice: when you play Duo put VC=16. Now you can do it in gamecreation. More in general, do not create/join a game with an idiot VC.

In multi-players games you can't put in all hold, it'd screw the game advantaging someone rather than someone else.
But in multi-players games, 'concede' is even more useless, because there's always someone who's fighting against the bigger power and who would not vote for concede.
Or there should be. If you think you can't win anymore, you should:
- Commit trying to set up a 'resistance' against the bigger power in order to achieve a draw. Even a small 1-unit power could be necessary (if it's too late to do it, well, then it will probably take 2 or 4 turns for the game to end: not a big issue). Also:
- Screw the guy who screwd you (my favourite plan 'B')
- in PPSC, someone could find interesting to fight for some more SC (and he would not vote concede)
So I believe that even when such a possibility exists, the chances that everyone but the winner would vote for it are extremely low.

It could even be dangerous because:
- the 'talk' of the game (either between players or in Global) could be focused on the concede vote while it could (and should) still be focused on setting up a resistance looking for a draw. If you are forced to play it till the end you'd surely be more cooperative. If you got the concede option and if you're not going to win, you could spend your efforts only to convice the other to vote it!
And what if someone who wants to start a new game and he can't because of his low RR, makes some blackmail like: "vote it or I'll put all holds until the end".
- I think I've seen all kind of noobs and I would not be surprised to hear from one of them, asked on why he CDed, this reply: "But I conceded!" - LOL

But most of all, it would be useless. As raapers said: "They CD because they don't care about the game." Do you think that someone who doesn't care would put any effort in convince the other to vote? I think he would CD anyway.

PS. raapers, if you are all for harsher penalties, could you please read this threadID=24979 and after that, if you like, post your thoughts?

Cmon, Guaroz! Are we really doing this discussion? :P
I have never ever used a cancel vote in any of the games i've played (here, or on webdip). So that makes it a bad option?

I am not arguing for this option because it's the most useful. I started to help raapers get his point across and I don't think it's a bad idea. Let me state again that there are some games were i'd personally vote concede a few years before the end, just like resigning in chess. Yes, yes, obviously only if all players agree etc.

If you can't win you should: "- Commit trying to set up a 'resistance' against the bigger power in order to achieve a draw. Even a small 1-unit power could be necessary (if it's too late to do it, well, then it will probably take 2 or 4 turns for the game to end: not a big issue)."
No argument. We're not talking about games were you're NEEDED for the draw. We're talking about games that are pretty much ending whatever you do.

"- Screw the guy who screwd you (my favourite plan 'B')"
Sure, diplomacy has some extra rules of conduct. Like not multiaccounting or leaving games early. But is revenge is in ANY way mandatory? I mean, I agree it feels good most of the times, but imagine all the forum posts: "Blabla did not take revenge on Blahblah in the end! Unfair playing, multis! I want my points back."

"in PPSC, someone could find interesting to fight for some more SC (and he would not vote concede)" And there is not a thing the concede button would change about that...." Yes, so how is this different from a playing not wanting to draw, pause or cancel? I don't get how "it won't be used much" is any reason not to do it. A good reason would be that it's too much trouble to implement! But if we only did things on this site that everyone would use all the time, we wouldn't have all the great additions this site has over webdip.

Now for your nice arguments. It could be dangerous, because talk might be focussed on getting players to concede. Why?! It does not make sense. There is only one type of player that will vote for a draw and then whine about other people not voting draw. They are called very annoying and many times they are noobs as well. Which brings me to your last point about noobs clicking "concede" and then CD'ing, because they don't realize it's a vote.... no, no, no. How can that be an argument against a concede button if that same noob will do it with the cancel, draw of pause button? (Yeah... i paused the game so i thought i could go on a holiday) So we should have NO votes? :P

"But most of all, it would be useless. As raapers said: "They CD because they don't care about the game." Do you think that someone who doesn't care would put any effort in convince the other to vote? I think he would CD anyway."
Oh my, so now we should NOT have a concede button, because it does not magically solve the problem of bastards CD'ing? Cmon!

I love this.

Exactly as sqrg said. As an example, this game is why we need conceeding as an option: http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=7172#gamePanel

I took all of my opponent's spawning SCs, so now I just have to hunt down his last guys or take a ton more SCs myself... gonna be a while. :-P

@sqrg: First of all, sorry:I didn't re-read what I wrote. The "should" is related only on the first point, being the other 2 just options you "could" (so not mandatory, for God's sake!). I was just exampling some good plan 'B' you can find in games you can't win anymore. And even looking for a draw is not mandatory, everyone can do what he likes the most. "Should" is to be intended for what a good player would usually do.

>>>We're talking about games that are pretty much ending whatever you do.
**Well, if they are already at that point... just let them end. What are we talking about? A matter of few days? Is it that annoying for you? And... how often will it happen?
See sqrg, you made a lot of good points. Including my good point: I believe that the effort is not worth the benefit (if there's any). To be sure of this, we should ask Oli how much effort making this tool would require. The point is that Oli is very busy. A year ago he said that he would have implemented the "Neutral units" rules into Duo some time later within 2011. It would be a thing more useful and more used than Concede, but he hasn't found the time yet.

So, if some day I'll read a thread from Oli like "New feature: Concede button!" then I'll surely not post into it to say that I don't like it. And not even to say that it could be backfiring. And not even that there were more urgent things to do.
But I believe that I'll never vote for it (while, btw, I already used Cancel 4-5 times, even in a gunboat, once). I can't imagine the right, useful situation for it, in a multiplayer game. Maybe I'm just lacking in fantasy, sorry.

Perhaps I could use it in some 1v1 game like the one NakedBatman linked. Surely it's a right, useful situation.
Although Union doesn't seem to be conceding, it looks like Confederacy had to put in orders for 16 units for last... mmm.... 8 turns? So, if Union clicked on Concede button, ONE person could save... say... 2*8... mmm... 16 minutes in about 10 days? Wow.

Wouldn't it be better asking for implementation of the other 2 victory conditions? (see variant page).

Then we agree on all points ;)

Free time and interest usually comes in waves. And Oli has been quite active the last few weeks. So who knows what wonders he might bring us?

I think a concession button for 1v1s is a great idea. I get so sick of people playing me and then around 1905 starting to take the full phase instead of finalizing because they procrastinate until the deadline to enter orders because they don't want to play anymore. Games end up dragging out for a week or two after they've been decided and there's nothing I can do about it.

First, obviously this is up to Oli and the other admins. If they say it would be way too difficult to code and put in, I'm not going to argue. But if the question is whether we should implement it or not, then I say yes.

But, wait, what are your reasons for not wanting it?

(1) You dont feel the need for it. -- So then don't use it. If others (even those in games with you) want to use it but you don't, then don't vote for it.

(2) It wont be used very often. -- I dont think there is any way of knowing how often it will be used until it is implemented. But, that said, how often is the pause used? Or extend? They arent there because they are used often, but for those rare instances when players need/want to use them.

(3) You wont save a lot of time. -- I disagree and don't think you understand the button, again. Until everyone agrees to the concession you wont save any time at all. People will still have to enter all their moves just like normal. What it does do is end the game quickly, perhaps saving days or weeks worth of having to check that game.

Just like a draw. By your logic, should we not have draws as options? Technically the games should continue indefinitely until one player solos, no? Even if you are stuck at 17-17, you never know when the other player will misorder. Or never know if a player will get bored with the wait, stab you and throw the game.

(4) It would be useless in multi-player games where another losing party still wants to fight it out. -- Yes, that is very likely. There are a spectrum of possible instances when this might or wont be used, but, for this discussion, lets imagine we have a classic game where Turkey is sitting at 16 SCs, France has 13, and England has 5 -- his home SCs, Norway and StP. The game drags on year after year, with England doing nothing but support holding StP and backing up the logjam of fleets keeping Turk in the Med. Turk won't accept draw. What are England's options?

A) Wait, continue to support hold and hope either France breaks thru or forces the draw, or Turk gets bored.
B) Try and convince France to switch some units around so he gets a bigger piece of the action.
C) Throw the game to Turk, either by just sitting and holding or by stabbing France.
D) CD.

Of course A is the best choice, B a nice option, C a valid if cheap move, and D a terrible, but too often used, alternative. As I see it, especially in a gunboat or public diplomacy game, England could use the concede button to signal to France his unhappiness with the current situation, desire for option B, or threat of option C. If I was France, I would appreciate the heads up so I could defend myself. If I was Turk, I would appreciate knowing the game might not continue dragging on forever.

And, again, why does the unlikelihood of it being used mean it should not be implemented at all?

(5) It would be "dangerous" because it would draw the conversation to the concede rather than the draw -- I think sqrg addressed this well. The only one who would complain in the above scenario would be France who instead of trying to convince Turk to draw would have to now convince England to unclick concede. I really dont see that as a huge problem as France would simply say he will never concede and it returns to a game of wills and diplomacy.

Also, is that not like real life? Cannot one country make a separate peace with the enemy and break up an alliance? Should that not then be another facet of the diplomacy in our game?

(6) Noobs will ruin it -- There is nothing I can do about that and is not worth addressing.

As I see it, there is no actual reason presented why it shouldnt be implemented. There might be perfectly valid reasons why it shouldnt be used in individual games, or by particular people who would rather play the game out, but no actual reason why the option shouldnt be available.

>>>By your logic, should we not have draws as options?
This made me get you didn't get my logic.

Sorry raap, I stopped reading there. It's a lot of english text and the arguments look being repetitive. You're a good arguer, I'm sure you made good points. Go on if you believe it's so important to have that button. Since I believe it's not important to have or not to have it, I just stop here. Good luck.
And yes, I just won't use that button. Peace.

At the moment it's really unlikely. This would require a complete change of the vote-code. and I try to limit code-changes to really small areas so I can integrate changes from the main webdip-code easy.

I "could" offer a "Concede"-vote that does end the game, set all players as defeat and give the win to the players with the most SC's.

It's not possible to add different votes for different players.

Understood, and thanks for explaining. That option would be perfect. Would probably just need a short disclaimer in the help section for the noobs.

Maybe it could work that everybody (but one player) need to concede to end the game and give the win to the only player _not_ voting concede.

^That's what I was envisioning. In 1v1s it effectively means the losing player concedes. That would make it functional for non-1v1s.

That seems logical.

" I 'could' offer a 'Concede'-vote that does end the game, set all players as defeat and give the win to the players with the most SC's. "

That's what the concede button should be! Any way there is no reason to devote too much of your time on this.

That was rather easy...
Works already...

I like the "opponent who doesn't vote concede wins" better as then the one who is winning can't force people who all wanted to concede to him either into civil disorder or drag the game out so he can try some stupid 20 SC win when they know he has it. People will try that you know.

Damn, Oli! That was *fast*!

Lol! Less than 1 hour!

Hahaha wow!! All that work trying to make my argument... haha. Thanks Oli!