This topic contains 65 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Chopper 10 years, 9 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #37984

    Irishbandit
    Participant

    @willis wrote:

    Death to resigners! 😈

    I actually voted a negative-score impact.

    The hidden “penalty” behind resigning is that “they can’t win the round”… well if they choose not to win, lets make certain they DON’T win. 😉

    Very well put!!!

    #37985

    JiNx
    Participant

    i voted no

    yes i resign and usualy i tell ppll make this a good shot so they no

    i resign for tactical reasons

    yes to deprive someone of the kill and to give me more chance of winning

    in the hope that they send a huge expensive weapon at me and fail and so cutting down there stockpile of weapons

    and by depriving them of the kill i deprive them of money aswell so more chance for me next round

    these are my stats make of them what you will

    main server
    Rounds Played 319
    Rounds Resigned 17

    beginers
    Rounds Played 336
    Rounds Resigned 15

    #37986

    cbx550f
    Participant

    I propose that we only allow whining in the first five seconds of every turn, that whining results in a $5000 monetary deficit, an -250 points.

    Why is it that people think resigning is so bad, when one of the options is the resigner KILLING them??

    Impose a score deficit for resigning, and I will stage a protest: Every time I join, I will resign every turn! 😀

    Really, I think this is ridiculous. I have always been an occasional resigner, and I have been resigning more lately for a couple reasons:
    1. To beat Hobbes
    2. Resigning a turn when injured badly frequently results in a verbal outburst from people, and frankly, I was feeling rebellious so I started resigning more. (This is the bigger reason)

    I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: It’s a WAR GAME. You win by having more kills (That’s all I really go by), and if you think that giving out a free kill to your opponent is “honourable” – by all means do it. If you’d rather win, I’d recommend the resign button now and again.

    I’m cbx, and I’m a resigner. Suck it up.

    #37987

    JiNx
    Participant

    =D>

    #37988

    hobbesme
    Participant

    @a banana wrote:

    If this is thus used to aid in winning a game then it is, indeed, very lame and certainly not in the spirit of the game when taken at face value.

    A debatable, albeit main-servers’ majority, opinion. Apparently anti-resigners believe resigning, retreating, sneaking away, or other forms of duplicity have never been a part of warfare.

    @ebonite² wrote:

    when a player kills himself … their score is not affected … So, with the proposed penalties for resigning, a player could lose 250 from their score … if either change is implemented, resigns will decline but suicides will jump?

    Although that’s slightly untrue — a self-kill reduces your game score by 30 points since it decreases your game kills by 1 — I’d agree with your overall conclusion : that if resigns are heavily penalized, then self-kill resigns will replace resignation & then what solution will the anti-resigning whiners call for? To heavily penalize self-kills, even accidental ones?

    @bobirov wrote:

    Whatever happened to resigns occuring at the end of the turn? I could have swore that pretty much solved the issue of wasted shots right then and there, as well as adding in a bit of a penalty in that you are likely to get shot if you’re being targeted.

    They DO occur at the end of the current firing move — thus providing players shooting at the resigning player one last chance to kill the target. If they fail to kill a crippled target, why is that the fault of the resigning player?

    @boy wrote:

    I point out one more time that the fabled “built in penalty” does not exist. It is a logical falacy. Nobody trying to win will resign if it actually hurt their chances to win, that would be stupid wouldn’t it. Resigners always calculate the risk in order to do the least damage to their ability to win … The penalty is and always was on the other player, the player that was about to kill you.

    You are correct that no one “trying to win [would] resign if it actually hurt their chances to win”. It is definitely a tactic to penalize any remaining player(s) trying to score kills vs. resigning players.

    However as Bobirov points out, resigns occur at the END of the current firing move. And as Ebonite also points out, ever since the end of 2004, resigning is a strategic self-kill that occurs at the end of the current firing move. Thus, I reiterate that if players cannot kill off any target in the very next firing move anyways, they don’t deserve the kill AND the resigning player could just as easily self-killed denying the player a kill.

    Which brings us back to the single-penalty vs. double-penalty for resigns debate. Since a kill is worth +30 points while a self-kill is worth -30 points, to any remaining player(s) in a round this is relatively equivalent. In other words, whether you make the kill & gain +30 points or whether the player self-kills for a net loss of -30 points; either one player actually gains +30 or all remaining players receive a relative net gain of +30.

    However, I obviously contend that a successful resign SHOULD be slightly rewarded vs. a self-kill since a player that is able to successfully resign/retreat thereby stealing a kill from the other player(s) deserves to be slightly rewarded. The reward in this case is that the resign incurs a zero-point relative offset from the remaining player(s) — a slight reward from the -30 points for a self-kill. But this slight reward is offset by relative net loss of 100 points incurred for forfeiting the round.

    In either case, introducing an additional point penalty for resigns adds a second penalty to resigns that is already accounted for in the relative net gains/losses already implemented. And as Ebonite & cbx correctly point out, if resigning is heavily penalized then resigners will self-kill for a much smaller point penalty.

    @jinx wrote:

    i resign for tactical reasons :

    • yes to deprive someone of the kill and to give me more chance of winning
    • in the hope that they send a huge expensive weapon at me and fail and so cutting down there stockpile of weapons
    • and by depriving them of the kill i deprive them of money aswell so more chance for me next round

    @cbx550f wrote:

    I have always been an occasional resigner, and I have been resigning more lately for a couple reasons:

    1. To beat Hobbes
    2. Resigning a turn when injured badly frequently results in a verbal outburst from people, and frankly, I was feeling rebellious so I started resigning more. (This is the bigger reason)

    I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: It’s a WAR GAME. You win by having more kills (That’s all I really go by), and if you think that giving out a free kill to your opponent is “honourable” – by all means do it. If you’d rather win, I’d recommend the resign button now and again.

    JiNx & cbx & I are obviously in the minority opinion on this matter, but advocating double- or triple-penalties for resigning or any gameplay strategy that players are against (shields, dirting, fuel movement, etc.) is also “lame”, “weak”, or “not in the spirit” IMO.

    #37989

    Ebonite
    Participant

    @hobbesme wrote:

    Although that’s slightly untrue — a self-kill reduces your game score by 30 points since it decreases your game kills by 1 —

    I must beg to differ with my good colleague and fiend, Hobbesme. Being a frequent employer of the Ebo Reverse Kamikaze tactic, I probably self-kill a bit more frequently than you, and have observed the following:

    When you join a game and self-kill, the scoreboard will display you with -1 for Kills, and a 0 for Score. In the case of an Ebo Reverse Kamikaze, the Kills will show 0 (+1, -1) and Score will show 30.

    EDIT: Well, after a short series of scientific experiments, it was determined that yes, a point penalty is imposed for self-kills, however, score will never go below 0. So both Hobbesme and I were right, from different points of view.

    #37990

    a banana
    Participant

    @hobbesme wrote:

    A debatable, albeit main-servers’ majority, opinion. Apparently anti-resigners believe resigning, retreating, sneaking away, or other forms of duplicity have never been a part of warfare.

    If we’re going to make RL comparisons, then isn’t it fair to say that there is no “resign” option ever in warfare? Sure, you can surrender, at which point the victor gains the spoils of war (reflected by points/money in the game), and you can do that in-game by simply staying-put and waiting for the final blow. Retreating can also be achieved by using fuel – at the player’s expense.

    The point being that to resign is free to the resigner. More than that, it’s actually beneficial as it potentially denies a kill to another player. Perhaps resign should actually be something that is bought, like all the other items – subject to market forces, too.

    @hobbesme wrote:

    I’d agree with your overall conclusion : that if resigns are heavily penalized, then self-kill resigns will replace resignation & then what solution will the anti-resigning whiners call for? To heavily penalize self-kills, even accidental ones?

    Self-kills already happen all the time. No-one seems to mind as everyone already knows that it costs the player a kill and some money. Even if more players start to self-kill (deliberately, perhaps) they will still lose a kill and $$$.

    @hobbesme wrote:

    Thus, I reiterate that if players cannot kill off any target in the very next firing move anyways, they don’t deserve the kill AND the resigning player could just as easily self-killed denying the player a kill.

    But resigners don’t self-kill under these circumstances because it penalises them to do so.

    @hobbesme wrote:

    However, I obviously contend that a successful resign SHOULD be slightly rewarded vs. a self-kill since a player that is able to successfully resign/retreat thereby stealing a kill from the other player(s) deserves to be slightly rewarded. The reward in this case is that the resign incurs a zero-point relative offset from the remaining player(s) — a slight reward from the -30 points for a self-kill. But this slight reward is offset by relative net loss of 100 points incurred for forfeiting the round.

    Assuming you are referring to 100-points gained for a round win (maybe you’re referring to something else), then hasn’t it already been pretty much agreed that it’s the crippled players that resign, crippled so badly that they’re almost certainly not going to be winning the round anyhow? So that 100 points is, in effect, already forfeited. Thus, It can’t really be argued that by resigning you’re forgoing the reward as it’s already out of the resigner’s grasp. By your own logic, that means the resigner is rewarded, with no penalty. The player trying to kill the resigner is penalized in being potentially denied a kill. There are plenty of circumstances where it may be very difficult to get the “kill shot” after severely wounding a player – terrain changes, a need to defend himself against a player that’s targeted him, or maybe the badly injured would-be resigner moves (behind some terrain, perhaps) making the kill-shot tricky, and then resigns.

    If we accept Ebonite’s argument (from a previous thread) that a resign is the equivalent of a RL wartime surrender, then under what circumstances would you expect the victor to be penalized when the defeated side surrenders? As I stated earlier, I don’t view a resign as a surrender.

    @hobbesme wrote:

    And as Ebonite & cbx correctly point out, if resigning is heavily penalized then resigners will self-kill for a much smaller point penalty.

    I think that’s a fair comment. So why not make resigning the same penalty as a self-kill? That might make resign redundant, but it also might stop this (apparently) frequently recurring theme popping up!

    @hobbesme wrote:

    JiNx & cbx & I are obviously in the minority opinion on this matter, but advocating double- or triple-penalties for resigning or any gameplay strategy that players are against (shields, dirting, fuel movement, etc.) is also “lame”, “weak”, or “not in the spirit” IMO.

    Are you advocating winning by any means at your disposal? Does that include self-dirt lasering? Or how about gridding, or turning the terrain off in the console? An argument could be made that using a modified client or an aim-bot is just another way to get an edge. So how do you draw the line? At what point do you say “this is ok, but that isn’t”?

    As far as I can remember, the original premiss behind the original Scorched was to join a game and kill or be killed, hopefully racking up enough points to win along the way. Assuming (possibly wrongly) that Gavin had the same concept in mind when he set out on the road to making Scorched3D. This is what I mean when I refer to the “spirit” of the game – the essence of what the game is about and how it was designed to be played. You presumably don’t, after all, actually use aim-bots or client-side hacks as I imagine you would consider that to be cheating – playing the game in a way that it was not designed to be played. For my money, I don’t really see how resigning under the circumstances discussed falls into the core ethos of either Scorched or Scorched3D. I’m not a stat-chaser, though, so I really couldn’t care if someone has more kills than me, as long as I’m having fun. That’s why I play games, after all…

    Ok, it’s way too late/early here. Either I should go and sleep, or throw in the towel and just get on with some work.

    a banana
    Back to the Fruit Bowl.

    #37991

    HWB
    Participant

    I voted money…But I’d like to see that the resigner gets no cash at the end of the round. I resign…..but it is time to give the resigner a penalty.

    #37992

    Willis
    Participant

    First of all let me state that my initial posting was to be on the HUMOR side. My opinion of resigning was just as I said.. but I had no prediction the topic was so serious.

    So here’s how I really am thinking:

    As it’s been proven and mildly agreed upon .. the resign is a scapegoat for players wanting a free exit from the round. But it does impact anyone wanting to make the kill. Financially (weaponry and resources spent) – Timely (wasting shots on one person instead of another) – and Score (or lack there of).

    A resigner cannot argue about not winning the round, because resign or death the lack of a win already exists. Nor can they argue about not acquiring kills, as the person resigning could easily make a kill or two BEFORE resigning.

    So I can sum my thoughts like this:

    * Some type of punishment should be implemented… OR a reward for everyone else.
    * I think the score is a value needing to be impacted. Not money.
    * Resign < Self Kill

    Money penalty is really hard to determine, I mean whats a couple thousand to a guy in the 6 digit range? *EDIT* Actually HWB’s idea isn’t so bad. This type of idea is what my “reward for everyone else” comment goes with.

    So score should be effected, but notice my last point… I said resigning is not as bad as a self kill. Why not it be a -10 point? A little more hurtful then an assist, but not as bad as a self kill.

    Heck.. on the official servers.. a person could win round 1… resign all remaining rounds.. and still come out with a positive score.

    #37993

    BOY
    Participant

    okay, remember, I am not advocating a change to the sacred official servers, but fine tuning a feature request for a new option. An option that it seems is liked by a good number. 🙂

    @a banana wrote:

    @hobbesme wrote:

    A debatable, albeit main-servers’ majority, opinion. Apparently anti-resigners believe resigning, retreating, sneaking away, or other forms of duplicity have never been a part of warfare.

    If we’re going to make RL comparisons, then isn’t it fair to say that there is no “resign” option ever in warfare? Sure, you can surrender, at which point the victor gains the spoils of war (reflected by points/money in the game), and you can do that in-game by simply staying-put and waiting for the final blow. Retreating can also be achieved by using fuel – at the player’s expense.

    The point being that to resign is free to the resigner. More than that, it’s actually beneficial as it potentially denies a kill to another player. Perhaps resign should actually be something that is bought, like all the other items – subject to market forces, too.

    hobbesme does have some valid points, but I have to love the way a banana says it. Resigning in a tank game should really be more of a surrender. The purpose of the resign feature is to avoid what would otherwise be inevitable.

    RESIGN
    –verb (used without object)
    1. to give up an office or position, often formally (often fol. by from): to resign from the presidency.
    2. to submit; yield: to resign before the inevitable.
    –verb (used with object)
    3. to give up (an office, position, etc.), often formally.
    4. to relinquish (a right, claim, agreement, etc.).
    5. to give or sign over, as to the control or care of another: She resigned her child to an adoption agency.
    6. to submit (oneself, one’s mind, etc.) without resistance.

    A better term might be:

    FORFEIT
    –noun
    1. a fine; penalty.
    2. an act of forfeiting; forfeiture.
    3. something to which the right is lost, as for commission of a crime or misdeed, neglect of duty, or violation of a contract.
    4. an article deposited in a game because of a mistake and redeemable by a fine or penalty.
    5. forfeits, (used with a singular verb) a game in which such articles are taken from the players.
    –verb (used with object)
    6. to subject to seizure as a forfeit.
    7. to lose or become liable to lose, as in consequence of crime, fault, or breach of engagement.
    –adjective 8. lost or subject to loss by forfeiture.

    @hwb wrote:

    I voted money…But I’d like to see that the resigner gets no cash at the end of the round. I resign…..but it is time to give the resigner a penalty.

    I also voted money. Are you meaning that the resigner should get no interest. I like that option. Resigning the round should forfeit all interest for that round. 😀 n1!

    #37994

    hobbesme
    Participant

    @a banana wrote:

    there is no “resign” option ever in warfare … Retreating can also be achieved by using fuel

    First, for obvious self-serving purposes, I have long advocated that resigns be renamed retreats. However, using fuel is NOT a retreat; it is a strategic repositioning on the battlefield. Resigning/retreating requires leaving or sneaking away from the battlefield.

    @willis wrote:

    the resign is a scapegoat for players wanting a free exit from the round.

    @boy wrote:

    Resigning in a tank game should really be more of a surrender. The purpose of the resign feature is to avoid what would otherwise be inevitable.

    @a banana wrote:

    then hasn’t it already been pretty much agreed that it’s the crippled players that resign, crippled so badly that they’re almost certainly not going to be winning the round anyhow? … Thus, It can’t really be argued that by resigning you’re forgoing the reward as it’s already out of the resigner’s grasp.

    Although I will agree with Willis & BOY that a resign/retreat is to the benefit of the retreating player & “to avoid … [the] inevitable”, I disagree with banana’s assertion that it has “already been pretty much agreed that it’s the crippled players that resign, crippled so badly that they’re almost certainly not going to be winning the round anyhow”.

    There are many instances when cbx or I will resign even when not yet crippled :

    • When we are at a strategic disadvantage even prior to being damaged
    • When we suspect we may be killed in the next one or more shots

    Thus, not all strategic resigns/retreats occur before being crippled.

    @a banana wrote:

    There are plenty of circumstances where it may be very difficult to get the “kill shot” after severely wounding a player – terrain changes, a need to defend himself against a player that’s targeted him, or maybe the badly injured would-be resigner moves (behind some terrain, perhaps) making the kill-shot tricky, and then resigns.
    By your own logic, that means the resigner is rewarded, with no penalty. The player trying to kill the resigner is penalized in being potentially denied a kill.

    Very true. Although many seem to advocate that “the original premiss behind … Scorched was to join a game and kill or be killed”, Don’tFearTheResignbell puts it well when he said that the point of the game is NOT to be killed but to NOT be killed. Thus, denying a kill by any available means should always be an acceptable strategy.

    But yes, I obviously believe that a successful resign/retreat SHOULD be rewarded.

    @a banana wrote:

    The point being that to resign is free to the resigner. More than that, it’s actually beneficial as it potentially denies a kill to another player. Perhaps resign should actually be something that is bought, like all the other items – subject to market forces, too.

    Although I would be OK with a monetary requirement, I still prefer my random retreat feature as proposed AND implemented in 2004. However, in the last two years I have brainstormed some additional compromises that could appease both resigners & anti-resigners alike :

      A successful resign/retreat would be based on a player tank’s current health/power & two random factors :

      1. When a player selects to resign/retreat, the probable success of the attempt to resign/retreat is determined based on the player tank’s remaining power/health.

        For example, if a player tank’s health is at 650/1000 power, the player has a 65% chance of successfully retreating; tank health of 400/1000 = 40% chance of successful retreat. Consequently, if tank health is at 1000/1000 power, the retreat is automatically successful since the probability is 100%.

        A linear percentage based on tank health/power makes it easy to know the odds.

        However, a minimum probability (e.g. 5%) should be allowed even if tank health is below the minimum health threshold. Thus, a tank health of 35/1000 power would still have a 5% probability of successfully retreating.

      2. Once a player’s attempt to retreat is successful, then the probability of whether the retreat occurs PRIOR to the current firing move or at the END of the current firing move is also based on the player tank’s remaining power/health, but adjusted by a scalar factor (e.g. multiplied by 1/2).

        For example, if a player tank’s health is at 650/1000 power AND its 65%-probability attempt to retreat was successful; the player has a 32.5% chance of retreating PRIOR to shots being fired in the current firing move (650/1000 * 1/2 = 32.5%). Otherwise, the player will retreat at the END of the current firing move provided the player tank survives the current firing move.

        For this calculation, NO minimum probability should be allowed even if tank health is very low. Thus, a tank health of 10/1000 power would only have a 0.5% probability of retreat prior to the current firing move.

        Thus even if a player’s attempt to retreat is successful, the player tank MAY fail to retreat prior to the current firing round & therefore remain in play for the current firing round.

      Resigns/retreats would still be unannounced to the other players, but an unsuccessful retreat has the obvious side-effect of being functionally equivalent to a skipped move.

    This scheme could serve as a compromise between those players that favor resigning as a valid, strategic tactic while reducing the absolute guarantee of resigning/retreating thus allowing anti-resigners more probable opportunities to kill the resigners.

    Now if this scheme can’t serve as a concession between resigners & anti-resigners, then these opposing camps will likely never be able to compromise.

    #37995

    BOY
    Participant

    There are many instances when cbx or I will resign even when not yet crippled :

    • When we are at a strategic disadvantage even prior to being damaged
    • When we suspect we may be killed in the next one or more shots]

    grr, thats his point, you’re not resigning for no reason, you resign when you feel it is to your advantage. Fine and good, there isn’t anything wrong with that necessarily, but still doesn’t do anything to explain why there should not be a form of penalty for resigning.

    Now, if you actually did resign just for no reason at all, and for pure silly reasons, you might have a better case for no penalty. Wait, then again, resinging for no reason other than to incur a penalty would be even more silly, so, no you really wouldn’t have a point there either. 😛

    #37996

    InductiveOne
    Participant

    Out of all the suggestions I’ve read so far, I personaly think if any penalty should be given for resigning it should be loss of interest. But, depending on how much money you have and the economy and all that, it could be a pretty substantial loss of money.

    If it were a point penalty, -50 seems like way to much. Maybe a -5 point deduction or something so close games might make people think twice about resigning or getting plugged.

    As much as I hate suggesting anything to help hobbs out (due to many a death given to me by him) I dont realy see a big issue with resigning. It seems like the same direction of thought would require a loss of points or money if you move out of the way a little bit the last 5 shots so you stay alive. Or a penalty for people who kill you 5 times in a row, or people who seem to shoot bigger bombs sooner then everyone else, etc…

    I think the only way to combat resigning is to kill people like hobbs much faster. So thats my idea, if you dont want people to resign, kill hobbs realy fast. If youve played him much, you know already its a good idea to try to do this.

    And about cbx resigning, in protest of your protest I’ll shoot rollers straight up the first round.

    :]

    #37997

    BOY
    Participant

    we need a club…. the club moto will be:

    “We shoot resigners on site.”

    I think Willis, Noob, and Indy, and me would all be in.

    I have a club that would fit the bill, you guys should join it.

    #37998

    InductiveOne
    Participant

    I am in a club with only 1 member. I shoot everyone on site. I try to start with the person winning, but I make an exception if someone asks me for a truce. If you need a truce your a wimp, no wimps on team inductive. Then again, I’m usualy dead anyway. But everyone is free to join my other club in the afterlife. Its like an armchair generals club but we drink more heavily.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 67 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.