MArcomage

I just joined a game hosted by BellaLugoshi and the player surrendered in the first round. The battle report that came said that I received the Assasin Award (since the player abandoned on the first round).

I think I should report it because since there was no fight, it's unfair that I received such an award

Well it's an open question if the awards should be disabled when opponent surrenders. Currently it's working as intended, so it's not a bug, but that doesn't mean we can't change it.

Maybe the Assassin award shouldn't work as is, but you shouldn't get less exp when an opponent surrenders. That would provide an incentive for people to surrender the turn before they lost every time.

Well it's not really a big deal I was wondering if it slept from you during programming it, but I still think it's a bit unfair getting an award for not achieving anything at all :P

I think we should give awards whit surrender victory, else surrender would be to much of a exp-denier. If your winning, it's already at least 5% less in the first step, that you actually _did_ deserve. This can be particularly mean when saving for Awards Like Collector.

Of course, in this case, it might give a potential feed-option more attraction, but it would be in-consequent to make an exception (not _necessarily_ bad...).

True but still I didn't destroy the enemy's tower as the Award states. I just accumulated victory through the player's surrender.

A surrender could only occur at a time when there are no other victory types in place. (If there were, the opponent wouldn't be able to surrender as the game would have ended anyway.) It makes sense that a surrender would be the player fleeing from his tower and leaving it for the opponent to raze. As the default victory type (in terms of being the most common means of winning as well as having an unmodified experience payout) I don't see why it shouldn't align as such and give standard points. There could be a separate victory type for surrender, but assuming it has the same experience payout, it would be unnecessary in my opinion.

As for the Assassin bonus, it makes sense that it was applied. Under usual circumstances, if you caused your opponent to surrender within the first ten turns, it was because you either crippled him irreversibly or were about to gain a victory anyway. Doing so that quickly is worthy of the bonus. Not applying it to an instance of surrender would do as Progressor suggested; it would give the opponent a way to deny you the bonuses you rightfully earned by surrendering.

This case of the opponent surrendering without playing a card is such an off-the-wall case that I don't know if it's worth trying to think about it too hard. No one has any incentive to surrender immediately.

I would suggest a very strange think.
Surrender now ends the game there.
I would suggest that surrender would mean that the surrender player would pass it's turns (discarding a card every turn) and the other player still need to play its cards to get a victory.
I can see a person denying a Titan awards using surrender, etc..
What do you think?

I suggest a surrender to apply only if both players agree to it. I.e. A player presses Surrender, the other player is the one to confirm it and then the surrendering player reconfirms it (so any errors while pressing the button by mistake are avoided). So a surrender will be a wholesome victory and will be agreed by both players so there's no question for any denied Awards.

What do u think?

I forgot to add that my idea was also to apply the same rules to games you can abort
For that you cannot wait for the other player to answer :-).
I think that if it's possible to implement my idea the awards could still be given.

I'm for a different approach. Instead of building a bullet proof system, I would concentrate on player statistics. With the game history module almost complete we will be able to view every game which was played and also we will be able to see statistics for all players concerning games. So, if a player use surrender for exp denial, it can be reported and verified, but also number of games which he surrendered can be seen as well.

And then it is up to you not to play with someone who uses surrender for such reasons.

Unfortunately, avoiding specific players isn't an option with the Hosted Games feature. If we ever did have a "blacklisted" player, the rest of us might have to stop using the feature.

That's true. How about canceling the game surrender? Do we really need it?

Surrender is sometimes needed if both players agree on it, to make a game shorter and free slots quickly. I will stick to what I said above, the Surrender button to be controlled by both players

How about surrender denying you experience, unless your opponent allows you to get experience?
This means that if you both agree that Player B won, Player A surrenders, both are happy.
However, if Player A just surrenders, leaving Player B with having built up facilities etc for 30 rounds just to get nothing, he can deny Player A experience?

It might be a shaky system, but it could work?

How about this: Both players will have a new button in the game screen - "Request surrender". If he pushes it the other player will have a button "Accept surrender". If he accept the surrender only then the player will have the option to surrender a game. This is fairly implementable and would solve the problem, wouldn't it?

i agree

Abort games will continue with the same problem, no?

I don't think so. When game is aborted the player's score or exp is unaffected.

1."Request surrender". If he pushes it the other player will have a button
2."Accept surrender". If he accept the surrender
3.only then the player will have the option to surrender a game.

I think step 3 is redundant here.

Story wise:
Invader overwelms defender, defender wants to surrender, invader sacks settlement anyway. :-P